τῆς Se 


The 


International Critical Commentary 


on the Holp Acriptures of the Old and 
δε Cestaments 


UNDER THE EDITORSHIP OF 


THE REv. CHARLES AUGUSTUS BRIGGS, D.D., D.LITT. 


Edward Robinson Professor of Biblical Theology, 
Union Theological Seminary, New York; 


THE REv. SAMUEL ROLLES DRIVER, D.D., D.LITT. 
Regius Professor of Hebrew, Oxford} 


THE Rev. ALFRED PLUMMER, D.D. 
Master of University College, Durham. 


Ghe International Crifical Commentary 
on the Θοίη Scriptures of the Old and 


New Gestaments. 


EDITORS’ PREFACE. 


THERE are now before the public many Commentaries, 
written by British and American divines, of a popular or 
homiletical character. The Cambridge Bible for Schools, 
the Handbooks for Bible Classes and Private Students, The 
Speaker’s Commentary, The Popular Commentary (Schaff), 
The Expositor’s Bible, and other similar series, have their 
special place and importance. But they do not enter into 
the field of Critical Biblical scholarship occupied by such 
series of Commentaries as the Kuragefasstes exegetisches 
Handbuch sum A. T.; De Wette’s Kuragefasstes exegetisches 
Handbuch zum N. T.; Meyer’s Kritisch-exegetischer Kom- 
mentar; Keil and Delitzsch’s Biblischer Commentar uber das 
A..T.; Lange’s Theologisch-homiietisches Bibelwerk ; Nowack’s 
Handkommentar zum A. T.; Holtzmann’s Handkommentar 
zum NN. T. Several of these have been translated, edited, 
and in some cases enlarged and adapted, for the English- 
speaking public; others are in process of translation. But 
no corresponding series by British or American divines 
has hitherto been produced. The way has been prepared 
by special Commentaries by Cheyne, Ellicott, Kalisch, 
Lightfoot, Perowne, Westcott, and others; and the time has 
come, in the judgment of the projectors of this enterprise, 
when it is practicable to combine British and American 
scholars in the production of a critical, comprehensive 


EDITORS PREFACE 


Commentary that will be abreast of modern biblical scholar- 
ship, and in a measure lead its van. , 

Messrs. Charles Scribner’s Sons of New York, and Messrs. 
T. & T. Clark of Edinburgh, propose to publish such a 
series of Commentaries on the Old and New Testaments, 
under the editorship of Prof. C. A. Briccs, D.D., in America, 
and of Prof. S. R. Driver, D.D., for the Old Testament, and 
the Rev. ALFRED PLumme_ER, D.D., for the New Testament, 
in Great Britain. 

The Commentaries will be international and inter-con- 
fessional, and will be free from polemical and ecclesiastical 
bias. They will be based upon a thorough critical study of 
the original texts of the Bible, and upon critical methods of 
jnterpretation. They are designed chiefly for students and 
clergymen, and will be written in a compact style. Each 
book will be preceded by an Introduction, stating the results 
of criticism upon it, and discussing impartially the questions 
still remaining open. The details of criticism will appear 
in their proper place in the body of the Commentary. Each 
section of the Text will be introduced with a paraphrase, 
or summary of contents. Technical details of textual and 
philological criticism will, as a rule, be kept distinct from 
matter of a more general character; and in the Old Testa- 
ment the exegetical notes will be arranged, as far as 
possible, so as to be serviceable to students not acquainted 
with Hebrew. The History of Interpretation of the Books 
will be dealt with, when necessary, in the Introductions, 
with critical notices of the most important literature of 
the subject. Historical and Archeological questions, as 
well as questions of Biblical Theology, are included in the 
plan of the Commentaries, but not Practical or Homiletical 
Exegesis. The Volumes will constitute a uniform series, 


THE INTERNATIONAL CRITICAL COMMENTARY. 


TueE following eminent Scholars are engaged upon the 
Volumes named below: 


Genesis 


Exodus 
Leviticus 
Numbers 
Deuteronomy 


Joshua 


Judges 


Samuel 
Kings 
Chronicles 
Ezra and 


Nehemiah 


Psalms 


Proverbs 


Job 


THE OLD TESTAMENT. 


The Rev. JoHN SKINNER, D.D., Professor of Old 
Testament Language and Literature, College of 
Presbyterian Church of England, Cambridge, 
England. 

The Rev. A. R. S. KENNEDY, D.D., Professor of 
Hebrew, University of Edinburgh. 

J. F. Stenninc, M. A., Fellow of Wadham Col- 
lege, Oxford. 

G. BuCcHANAN Gray, D.D., Professor of Hebrew, 
Mansfield College, Oxford. [Now Ready. 

The Rev. 5. R. Driver, D.D., D.Litt., Regius 
Professor of Hebrew, Oxford. [Mow Ready. 

The Rev. GrEorGE ADAM Situ, D.D., LL.D., 
Professor of Hebrew, Free Church College, 
Glasgow. 

The Rev. GEORGE Moore, D.D., LL.D., Pro- 
fessor of Theology, Harvard University, Cam- 
bridge, Mass. [Now Ready. 

The Rev. H. P. Smitn, D.D., Professor of Biblical 
History, Amherst College, Mass. [Mow Ready. 

The Rev. Francis Brown, D.D., D.Litt., LL.D., 
Professor of Hebrew and Cognate Languages, 
Union Theological Seminary, New York City. 

The Rev. Epwarp L. Curtis, D.D., Professor of 
Hebrew, Yale University, New Haven, Conn. 

The Rev. L. W. BATTEN, Ph.D., D.D., Rector of 
St. Marks Church, New York City, sometime 
Professor of Hebrew, P. E. Divinity School, 
Philadelphia. 

The Rev. Cuas. A. Briccs, D.D., D.Litt., Pro- 


fessor of Theological Encyclopzedia and Symbol- 
ics, Union Theological Seminary, New York. 


[Vol. J Now Ready, Vol. 77 in Press, 
The Rev. C. H. Toy, D.D., LL.D., Professor of 


Hebrew, Harvard University, Cambridge, Mass. 
[Now Ready. 


The Rev. S. R. DRIVER, D.D., D.Litt., Regius 
Professor of Hebrew, Oxford. 


She Infernationaf Critica? Commentary. 


Isaiah Chaps. I-XXXIX. The Rev. G. BUCHANAN 
Gray, D.D., Professor of Hebrew, Mansfield 
College, Oxford. 


Isaiah Chaps. XL-LXVI. The Rev. S. R. Driver, D.D., 
D.Litt., Regius Professor of Hebrew, Oxford. 
Jeremiah The Rev. A. F. Kirxpatrickx, D.D., Master of 


Selwyn College, Regius Professor of Hebrew, 
Cambridge, England. 


Ezekiel By the Rev. G. A. Cooker, M.A., Fellow Mag- 
dalen College, andthe Rev. CHARLEs F. BURNEY, 
M.A., Fellow and Lecturer in Hebrew, St. Johns 
College, Oxford. 


Daniel The Rev. Joun P. Peters, Ph.D., D.D., some- 
time Professor of Hebrew, P. E. Divinity School, 
Philadelphia, now Rector of St. Michael’s Church, 
New York City. 


Amos and Hosea W. R. Harpsr, Ph.D., LL.D., President of the 
University of Chicago, Illinois, [Now Ready. 


Micah to Haggai Prof. Joun P. Smitu, University of Chicago; 
Prof. CHARLES P. FaGnanI, D.D., Union Theo- 
logical Seminary, New York ; W. HAvES WarD, 
D.D., LL.D., Editor of The Independent, New 
York; Prof. Juttus A. BEvER, Union Theolog- 
ical Seminary, New York, and Prof. H. G. 
MITCHELL, D.D., Boston University. 


Zechariah to Jonah Prof. H. G. MITCHELL, D.D.; Prof. Joun P. SMITH 
and Prof. J. A. BEVER. 


Esther The Rev. L. B. Paton, Ph.D., Professor of 
Hebrew, Hartford Theological Seminary. 
Ecclesiastes Prof. GrorcEe A. BARTON, Ph.D., Professor of 
Biblical Literature, Bryn Mawr College, Pa. 
Ruth, Rev. CHarves A. Briccs, D.D., D.Litt., Profes- 
Song of Songs sor of Theological Encyclopzdia and Symbolics, 


and Lamentations Union Theological Seminary, New York. 


THE NEW TESTAMENT. 


St. Matthew The Rev. WILLouGHBY C. ALLEN, M.A., Fellow 
of Exeter College, Oxford. 

St. Mark The late Rev. E. P. σου, D.D., sometime Pro- 
fessor of New Testament Literature, P. E. Divinity 
School, Philadelphia. [Now Ready. 

St. Luke The Rev. ALFRED PLummgrR, D.D., sometime 


Master of University College, Durham. 
[Vow Ready. 


The International Critica? Commentary. 


St. John 


Harmony of the 
Gospels 


Acts 


Romans 


Corinthians 


Galatians 


Ephesians and 
Colossians 


Philippians and 
Philemon 


Thessalonians 


The Pastoral 
Epistles 


Hebrews 


St. James 


Peter and Jude 


The Epistles of 
St. John 


Revelation 


The Very Rev. Joun Henry BERNARD, D.D., 
Dean of St. Patrick’s and Lecturer in Divinity, 
University of Dublin. 


The Rev. WiLL1AmM Sanpay, D.D., LL.D., Lady 
Margaret Professor of Divinity, Oxford, and the 
Rev. WILLouGHBY C. ALLEN, M.A., Fellow of 
Exeter College, Oxford. 


The Rev. C. H. Turner, D.D., Fellow of Mag- 
dalen College, Oxford, and the Rev. H. N. BATE, 
M.A., Examining Chaplain to the Bishop of 
London. 


The Rev. WiLiiam Sanpay, D.D., LL.D., Lady 
Margaret Professor of Divinity and Canon of 
Christ Church, Oxford, and the Rev. A. C. 
Heap.iam, M.A.,, D.D., Principal of Kings Col- 
lege, London. [Vow Ready. 


The Right Rev. ARCH. ROBERTSON, D.D., LL.D., 
Lord Bishop of Exeter, and the Rev. RICHARD J. 
KNOWLING, D.D., Professor of Divinity, Uni- 
versity of Durham. 


The Rev. Ernest D. Burton, D.D., Professor of 
New Testament Literature, University of Chicago. 


The Rev. T. K. Assott, B.D., D.Litt., sometime 
Professor of Biblical Greek, Trinity College, 
Dublin, now Librarian of thesame. [Vow Ready. 


The Rev. Marvin R. VINCENT, D.D., Professor 


of Biblical Literature, Union Theological Semi- 
nary, New York City. [Vow Ready. 


The Rev. JAmes E. Frame, M.A., Professor of 
Biblical Theology, Union Theological Seminary, 
New York. 


The Rev. WALTER Lock, D.D., Warden of Keble 
College and Professor of Exegesis, Oxford. 


The Rev. A. ΝΑΙΕΝΕ, M.A., Professor of Hebrew 
in Kings College, London. 


The Rev. JAmEs H. Ropss, D.D., Bussey Professor 
of New Testament Criticism in Harvard Uni- 
versity. 


The Rev. CHARLES Bicc, D.D., Regius Professor 
of Ecclesiastical History and Canon of Christ 
Church, Oxford. [Mow Ready. 


The Rev. E. A. Brooke, A.M., Fellow of Kings 
College, Cambridge. 


The Rev. Ropert H. CuHares, M.A., D.D., Pro- 
eel of Biblical Greek in the University of 


THE EPISTLES TO THE PHILIPPIANS 
AND TO PHILEMON 


Rev. MARVIN R. VINCENT, D.D. 


YA ΝΣ 
Oo \OC 
THE INTERNATIONAL CRITICAL COMMENTARY MAR 29 1939 


A 


ERITICAL AND EXEGETICAL 
COMMENTARY 


ON THE 


EPISTLES TO THE PHILIPPIANS 
AND TO PHILEMON 


BY 


Rev. MARVIN R. VINCENT, DD. 


BALDWIN PROFESSOR OF SACRED LITERATURE IN UNION THEOLOGICAL 
SEMINARY, NEW YORK 


NEW YORK 
CHARLES SCRIBNER’S SONS 
1906 


COPYRIGHT, 1897, BY 
CHARLES SCRIBNER’S SONS 


PREFACE 


THE two epistles treated in this volume have always had a 
peculiar attraction for both readers and expositors. On the 
Epistle to the Philippians more than a hundred commentaries 
have been produced, some of them by scholars of the first 
rank. It would be strange, therefore, if this work did not 
contain a great deal which has appeared elsewhere; and I am 
sure that the call for its publication has not arisen from the 
deficiencies of my predecessors. 

I find, nevertheless, some satisfaction in the thought that 
the knowledge of any subject is promoted, in however small a 
degree, by the independent and honest treatment of each new 
expositor, who, by approaching his work from a different direc- 
tion, seeing his material at a different angle and in the light of 
the most recent criticism, and shifting the points of emphasis, 
may reawaken attention to what is already familiar, and thus 
stimulate inquiry if he does not widen the sphere of knowledge. 

The main object in this commentary has been to exhibit 
St. Paul’s thought in these two letters which I am fully con- 
vinced are from his pen. ‘To this end all comment — gram- 
matical and lexical as well as exegetical—has been directed, 
and special care has been given, to the paraphrases with which 
the several sections are prefaced, and to the illustration of the 
apostle’s nervous and picturesque diction upon which the marks 
of his personality are so deeply set. The theological bearings 
of certain passages it is manifestly impossible to overlook; and 
the student is entitled to demand of the commentator such 
notice and treatment of these as are consistent with the recog- 


nised difference between a commentary and a theological trea- 
v 


vi PREFACE 


tise. To such passages I trust that I have brought no dogmatic 
bias to prevent or to modify the application of strict exegetical 
principles. 

I am conscious of the difficulties which attach, at certain 
points, to all attempts to place the Philippian letter in its 
complete and truthful historical setting. These difficulties are 
inevitable in the present fragmentary and limited state of our 
knowledge concerning some conditions of the Roman and Phi- 
lippian churches which are presupposed in the epistle, so that 
whatever conclusions may be reached by the most conscientious 
study will awaken question and criticism. 

I have had constantly in view the fact that these two letters 
are familiar and informal productions, and have allowed that 
fact due weight in the exegesis. Epistolary colloquialisms pre- 
sent serious difficulties to an interpreter who refuses to recognise 
them, and who insists upon the rigid application of rhetorical, 
logical, and dogmatic canons to the unstudied and discursive 
effusions of the writer’s heart. 

In seeking to avoid the se/va selvaggia of technical discussion 
which impairs the value of some most important works of this 
class, I have not felt bound to go to the opposite extreme of 
dogmatic conciseness. A brief discussion has sometimes seemed 
necessary; but, as a rule, I have given my own interpretation 
with the reasons for it at the beginning of each note, appending 
a simple statement of different views with the names of those 
who hold them. 

I avail myself of this opportunity to acknowledge gratefully 
my obligations to previous workers in this field, and not least 
to some of those from whom I have often had occasion to differ. 


MARVIN ΚΕ. VINCENT. 


UNION THEOLOGICAL SEMINARY, NEW YORK, 


CONTENTS 


Ξε ὁ----- 


THE EPISTLE OF ST. PAUL TO THE PHILIPPIANS: 


INTRODUCTION 
TEXT . 
COMMENTARIES 
ABBREVIATIONS 


To THE PHILIPPIANS 


THE EPISTLE OF ST. PAUL TO PHILEMON: 


INTRODUCTION 

TEXT 

COMMENTARIES 

To PHILEMON . ὁ 5 - 3 5 3 
INDEX OF SUBJECTS . ς : ὃ é - 5 


INDEX OF GREEK WoRDS . ᾿ ᾿ = : κ 


vii 


PAGE 


171 


Be 


. 175 


195 


. 199 


ae EPISTLE OF ΘΤ ῬΑ TO 
THE PHILIPPIANS 


INTRODUCTION 


I 
MACEDONIA 


In the earliest times, Macedonia was included in that vast 
region called Thrace, which had no definite boundaries, but was 
regarded as comprising all that part of Europe lying to the north 
of Greece. 

The original seats of the Macedonians were bounded on the 
west by the chain of Scardus, the northerly continuation of 
Pindus; on the south by the Cambunian Mountains which 
formed the northwestern boundary of Thessaly; on the east by 
Mt. Bermius. The northern boundary cannot be determined. 
The original Macedonia, therefore, did not reach the sea. 

The country included within these boundaries is mountainous ; 
but between the lateral ridges connecting with the main line of 
Scardus were three wide alluvial basins, two of which were pos- 
‘sessed by the original Macedonians. The territory was fertile, 
affording abundant pasture and cornland. The inhabitants of the 
mountains and of the plains acknowledged a common ethnical 
name, though distinguished from each other by local titles. 
Their language differed from those of the Illyrians, Thracians, 
and Greeks. The different sections, at first distinct and inde- 
pendent, were finally absorbed into one under the name of 
Macedonia, having its centre at AXge or Edessa, the modern 
Vodhena, which, according to Phrygian legends, was the site of 
the gardens of Midas. Edessa was always retained as the royal 

1x 


x INTRODUCTION 


burying-place, and was regarded as the religious centre of the 
nation. 

Such was the position of the Macedonians in the seventh cen- 
tury B.c. It was changed by a family of exiled Greeks of the 
Herakleid or Temenid race of Argos (Hdt. viii. 137, 138). 
According to Herodotus, Perdiccas was the founder of the new 
Macedonian dynasty ; and he gives a list of five successive kings 
from Perdiccas to Alexander, the son of Amyntas (B.C. 520-500). 
During the reigns of Amyntas and Alexander, Macedonia became 
implicated with the affairs of Greece. The Temenid kings ex- 
tended their dominions on all sides. Among their conquests was 
Pieria, between Mt. Bermius and the sea, which gave them the 
command of a part of the coast of the Thermaic Gulf. 

Philip, the father of Alexander the Great, ascended the Mace- 
donian throne B.c. 360. He subjugated the Pzonians and Illy- 
rians, recovered Amphipolis, and gained possession of Pydna, 
Potidea, and Krenides, into which last-named place he intro- 
duced colonists and named it, after himself, Philippi. By the 
battle of Chzronea (B.c. 338), he became master of all Greece. 
At his death Macedonia had become a compact empire. Its 
boundaries had been extended as far as the Propontis, and from 
the coast of the Propontis to the Ionian Sea, and the Ambracian, 
Messenian, and Saronic gulfs. 

His son Alexander succeeded him B.c. 336. The victory over 
the Persians at the Granicus.in Troas (B.c. 334) was followed 
by the submission of nearly all Asia Minor. The campaign 
against the Persians ended in the battles of Issus (B.c. 333) and 
Arbela (B.c. 331), which decided the fate of the Persian Empire 
and were followed by the submission of Syria and Phcenicia. Pass- 
ing into Egypt, he founded Alexandria, and carried his conquests 
into the far East, where Babylon, Susa, Persepolis, and Pasargadze 
fell into his hands. This wonderful campaign closed B.c. 327, by 
which time his design had become manifest to combine Mace- 
donia, Greece, and the East into one vast empire. The execution 
of this plan was cut short by his death (B.c. 323). The ultimate 
bearing of Alexander’s conquests upon the diffusion of Christianity 
is familiar to every student. 

After Alexander’s death the Macedonian empire fell into the 
hands of his principal generals, and after a series of wars extend- 


INTRODUCTION xi 


ing over twenty-two years, it was broken into three great states, 
— Macedonia, Egypt, and Syria. 

Macedonia was first brought into contact with Rome through 
the Carthaginian victories at Trasimene and Cannz (B.c. 217, 
216). Philip, the son of Demetrius, then king of Macedonia, 
sent to Hannibal proffering his alliance; and a treaty was con- 
cluded a year later. The result of this treaty was the first Mace- 
donian war with Rome, which was terminated by the treaty of 
Dyrrhachium (B.c. 205). A second war followed, which ended 
in the annihilation of the Macedonian army at Cynocephalz 
(B.c. 197). A peace was concluded which destroyed the polit- 
ical standing of the Macedonians, and by which all the states 
which had previously been subject to Philip were declared free. 

Philip was succeeded by his son Perseus, whose efforts against 
Eumenes of Pergamus, the ally of the Romans, brought on a third 
war (B.C. 171). The Macedonians experienced a crushing defeat 
at Pydna (B.c. 168), by the Roman army under Lucius A‘milius 
Paullus. The whole country was divided into four districts (Livy, 
xlv. 29), each of which was to constitute a separate republic ; but 
the citizens of each were forbidden to form any commercial or 
connubial relations with those of any of the others. ‘Thus per- 
ished the empire of Alexander the Great, a hundred and forty-four 
years after his death. The isolation of Macedonia was secured, 
while the people were amused with a show of liberty. 

Two claimants for the Macedonian throne, both professing to 
be sons of Perseus, successively attempted to stir the Macedonians 
to revolt. The Achzans broke with Rome. L. Mummius was 
sent to Greece B.c. 146, and burned the city of Corinth. By the 
commission which arrived from Rome soon after, all Greece south 
of Macedonia and Epirus was formed into a Roman province 
under the name of Achaia, and Macedonia with Epirus into 
another province. 

Upon the succession of Augustus the provinces were divided 
between the emperor and the senate (B.c. 27 ; see Suet. Augustus, 
47). The provinces which enjoyed absolute peace were assigned 
to the senate, while the frontier provinces, which required military 
force, fell to the emperor. Augustus thus strengthened his own 
military power, under pretence of relieving the senate of the cares 
and dangers of the empire. 


xii INTRODUCTION 


The governors of the senatorial provinces were called procon- 
suls. Their term of office was one year. They had no military 
authority, and therefore no power of life or death over the soldiers 
in their provinces. ‘The full title of governors of the imperial 
provinces was “ Legatus Augusti pro Praetore.’”’ They were ap- 
pointed by the emperor, and their term of office depended upon 
his pleasure. Their long residence made them familiar with the 
country and the people. There were fewer temptations to pecu- 
lation, and the imperial provinces were so much better governed 
than the senatorial, that the people of the latter sometimes peti- 
tioned to be transferred to imperial supervision ; especially as the 
expenses of proconsular administration were paid by the provinces, 
and the proconsuls were able to practise sundry abuses by which 
the amounts were increased. Macedonia and Achaia, which orig- 
inally fell to the senate, were, at their own request, made imperial 
provinces by Tiberius (Tac. “1211. i. 76). By Claudius they were 
again placed under the senate (Suet. Claud. 25). 


LITERATURE 
BIBLIOGRAPHY OF THE HISTORY OF ALEXANDER 


C. MULLER: Fragmenta Historicorum Graecorum, 1841. 

A. SCHAFER u. H. Nissen: Aédriss der Quellenkunde der griech. u. rom. 
Geschichte, 1885-1889. 

FABRICIUS : Bibliotheca Graeca. 

J. G. Droysen: Die Materialien zur Geschichte Alexanders. 

A. FRANKEL: Die Quellen der Alexandergeschichte, 1883. 

J. ΚΑΕΚΒΤ: Forschungen zur Gesch. d. Alex. d. Gr., 1887. 

Fragments of lost writers collected by R. GEIER: Scriptores Historiarum 
Alex. Mag. acetate suppares, 1844; and 

C. MULLER: Scriptores Rerum Alex. Mag., 1846. 


FOR THE ROMAN PERIOD 


POLYBIUS : covering 220-144 B.C. 

Dioporus SICULUS: Βιβλιοθήκη ἹΙστορική, B. xi—xx., from the second Persian 
war (B.C. 480) to B.C. 302. 

Livy: B. xxxi.-xlv. (201-167 B.C.). 

TEUFFEL : Gesch. d. rim. Lit., 5 Aufl., 1890. 

G. HERZBERG: Gesch. Griechenlands unter der Herrschaft der Rimer, 1886. 

W. SCHOEN: Gesch. Griechenlands von der Entstehung des Gtolischen und 
achiischen Bundes bis auf die Zerstérung Korinths, 1883. . 


INTRODUCTION xiii 


HISTORY OF ALEXANDER AND HIS SUCCESSORS 


J. G. DRoysen: Gesch. Alex. d. Gr., 1833; Gesch. des Hellenismus, 1836, 
1843. Comes down to B.c. 220. The two works in a 
2d ed. under the title Gesch. α΄. Hellenismus, 1877, 1878. 


B. NIESE: Gesch. d. griech. τὸ. maked. Staaten seit der Schlacht bet 
Chaeronea, Ft. i. to B.C. 281. Good bibliography. 1893. 

THIRLWALL: Hist. Greece, to B.C. 146. GROTE: to B.C. 301. CURTIUS: 
to B.C. 338. 

α. FINDLAY: Hist. Greece, 1877. Β. G, NIEBUHR: Lectures on Anc. 


fiist.; trans. by Schmitz; 1852. 

E. A. FREEMAN: Alex. G. and Greece during the Maced. Period; review of 
Niebuhr. Alex. G.,; review of Grote. ¢storical Essays, 
2d ser. 


ROMAN PROVINCIAL ADMINISTRATION 


J. MARQUARDT: émische Staatsverwaltung, 2 Aufl, 1881. 

W. T. ARNOLD: Zhe Roman System of Provincial Administration to the 
Accession of Constantine the Great, 1879. 

TH. MoMMSEN: The Provinces of the Roman Empire; trans. by Dickson, 
1886. 


INSCRIPTIONS 
“Corpus” of Gk. and Rom. Insc., Berlin Akad. ; supplemented by the Collec- 
tion of LE Bas-WADDINGTON, Voyage Archéologique en 
Gréce et en Asie Mineure, 1847. 
Later and more complete Berlin Collection, 1877-1883. 
‘A. J. LETRONNE: Recueil des Inscr. Grecques et Latines de l’ Egypte, 1842. 
Collection of Ancient Greek Inscr. in Brit. Mus., 1874. 
E. L. Hicks: <A Manual of Greek Historical Inscr., 1882. 


COINS 


J. H. EckuHeL: Doctrina Numorum Veterum, 1792-1798. 

MIONNET : Description de Médailles Antiques Grecques et Romaines, 
1806. 

B. V. HEAD: Historia Numorum, 1887. 


II 
PHILIPPI 


The district occupied by Philippi was originally called Krenides, 
‘Little Fountains’ (Strabo, 331 ; Appian, Be//. Civ. iv. 105), from 
the numerous springs which arose in the mountains on the north, 
and ran into the neighboring marsh. 


xiv INTRODUCTION 


According to Appian (Bed. Civ. iv. 105), Krenides was also 
known as Datos or Daton. ‘This statement has been too hastily 
set down as an error, largely on the authority of Leake (VV. Greece, 
iii. 223. See Lightf, Pr%p., p. 47; Rawlinson, Herodotus, on 
ix. 75). It appears that Daton was a Thasian town near the 
Strymonic Gulf, and was the centre of the continental possessions 
of the Thasians. According to Strabo (vii. frag. 36), Neapolis 
was a dependency of Daton. The name of the town passed into 
a proverb, as a place endowed with all good things. The proba- 
bility is that the first Thasian colony of Daton originally extended 
up to the plain of Krenides, and included it in its territory, but 
had fallen into the hands of the northern barbarians. About 
360 B.c. the Thasians, aided by the banished Athenian orator 
Callistratus, with some Athenian adventurers, founded a new 
colony at Krenides under the old name. The year 360, which 
followed the arrival of Callistratus at Thasos, is noted by Diod. 
Sic. (xvi. 3) as the date of the occupation of the mines of Kre- 
nides by the Thasians. It is an interesting fact that the coins 
struck by the Thasians on the occasion of reviving the mines of 
Krenides, and which bore the head of the Thasian Hercules, 
the tripod (the symbol of foundation) and the legend @ASION 
HIIEIPO, were preserved by the city of Philippi with only a 
change of inscription (see Heuzey and Daumet, A/tssion Arche- 
ologique de Macédoine, p. 60 ff. Comp. Curtius, Hist. Greece, 
Trans. v. 53). 

The site was between the rivers Strymon and Nestus, and an- 
swered, geographically, to the basin of the Angites (Hdt. vii. 113), 
which issued from the right bank of the Strymon, and formed, two 
leagues from the sea, the lake Kerkinitis. The basin might rather 
be described as a plain, now known as the plain of Drama, and 
framed on every side by mountains. The vast masses of Pangzeus 
separated it from the sea; but at one point the range was de- 
pressed, affording easy access to the gulf where now the Turkish 
harbor of Kavala, the ancient Neapolis, opens, opposite to the 
island of Thasos. 

Thrace contained rich deposits of gold. Golden particles from 
Hzemus were borne down by the waters of the Hebrus, and the 
Pzonian laborers, according to Strabo (vii. frag. 35), turned them 
up with their ploughshares. But the treasures of Pangzeus and of 


INTRODUCTION XV 


the mountains adjoining Krenides surpassed all others in richness. 
Gold-mining was the principal industry of the region for a long 
series of years ; and from the time that the treasures of the moun- 
tains were first brought to light by the Phoenicians, they played an 
important part in the history of the northern kingdoms. The 
feverish greed for gain did not promote the advance of civilisa- 
tion ; agricultural and commercial interests suffered, and the rapa- 
city of foreign invaders was stimulated. 

The Thasians, at the instigation of Callistratus, in the year 
before the accession of Philip of Macedon, penetrated into the 
interior to the plain of the Angites, and revived Krenides as a 
centre of mining operations. But the assaults of the Thracians 
upon the new colony soon compelled it to seek the assistance 
of Philip. He drove back the Thracians, annexed to Macedonia 
all the country as far as the Nestus, and built a fortress which 
became the centre of the mining district. He also gave the place 
his own name, Philippi. The plural form of the name seems to 
indicate that the new town, at the time when it fell into his hands, 
was composed of several distinct groups of dwellings defended by 
detached works for the protection of the miners, and not by a 
common and continuous enceinte. A fort on the hill which com- 
manded the defile was a necessity. Under the protection of this 
work it was sufficient to bar the defile by a temporary wall in order 
to allow an important group of dwellings to be erected at the foot 
of the rocks. Philip improved the region, drying up the marshes 
and laying out roads, and Theophrastus ( Causae Plantarum, v.14) 
relates that by these works the climate was perceptibly modified. 

The gold-mining industry yielded to Philip an annual revenue 
of a thousand talents, —a treasure which furnished him with the 
means of establishing and maintaining a navy, and which was quite 
as potent as his army in securing the future triumphs of Macedonia. 
“The gold of Krenides spread itself over Greece, preceding the 
phalanx like an advance-guard, and opening more gates than the 
battering-rams and catapults ” (Heuzey). 

On the mines, see Curtius, Hist. Greece, v.52; Appian, Bell. Civ., iv. 106; 

Boeckh, Public Economy of Athens ; Heuzey and Daumet, Mission Archéolo- 

gigue. See especially their interesting description of the rock formations of 


Philippi, and the comparison with the auriferous rocks of California (p. 55 ff.). 
On mining under the Romans, Marquardt, Rim. Staatsverwaltung, Bad. ii. 


245, 252-258. 


xvi INTRODUCTION 


The Romans became masters of this region upon the defeat of 
the Republican forces under Brutus and Cassius by Octavianus 
and Antony (8.c. 42). Philippi was the scene of the final conflict. 
The Republicans occupied two hills facing the town to the south- 
east, while the triumviral army was posted in the open plain. Two 
battles were fought: the first indecisive, resulting in the death of 
Cassius ; the second, twenty days later, which decided the fate of 
the republic. 

The sojourn of Octavianus at Philippi revealed to him its im- 
portance both as a military position and as a source of revenue. 
After his victory, and in commemoration of it, he made Philippi a 
military colony, and bestowed upon it the jus Ltalicum. The 
inscription COHOR. PRAE. PHIL. found on little copper coins 
of Philippi goes to show that this colony was originally composed 
of a division of veterans belonging to the prztorian cohorts of the 
triumvirate. It bore the name COLONIA JULIA AUGUSTA 
VICTRIX PHILIPPENSIUM. ‘The colony was not a mere 
town with its outskirts, but a great department, with boroughs 
and secondary towns, of which Philippi was the administrative 
centre. The Romans succeeded the Macedonians in the working 
of the mines, but never made them as profitable as the Mace- 
donians had done. 

Communities in the Roman provinces were either municipia 
(free towns) or coloniae (colonies). The colony represented trans- 
planted citizenship, while the municipium was engrafted upon the 
state. A provincial town became a municifium when its inhabi- 
tants received the Roman franchise, and a constitution from a 
Roman governor or commissioner. At the time of the Republic, 
and among the Italian cities, the municipia were the more import- 
ant; but in the imperial period the colonies outranked them. 
Extraordinary privileges were mostly, if not exclusively, confined 
to the colonies. The principal of these privileges was the jus 
Italicum, which was a grant to the community, not to individuals, 
and consisted in the right of proprietorship according to the 
Roman civil status. This right involved the acquisition of owner- 
ship by long use or prescription (wsucapio) ; the right of trans- 
ferring ownership by a fictitious suit (7# jure cessio) ; the right of 
᾿ the purchase or transfer of property (mancipatio), and the right 
of civil action or lawsuit (vindicatio). As, according to Roman 


INTRODUCTION xvii 


law, landed property in Italy was exempt from taxation, the jus 
Ltalicum conferred the same immunity upon provincial land. The 
right was never given except to a colony ; but all colonies did not 
possess it, and when they did not, the colonists were subjected to 
both a poll-tax and a land-tax. 

A colony was a miniature Rome. The colonists proceeded to 
their destination under their standards, and marked out with the 
plough the limits of the new city. The land was divided into 
sections of two hundred acres, which were subdivided into lots 
(sor¢es), and in military colonies these were apportioned accord- 
ing to rank. Even in the form and appearance of the city the 
mother-city was imitated. The coinage bore Roman inscriptions. 
The colonies were free from any intrusion by the governor of the 
province. Their affairs were regulated by their own magistrates 
called Duumviri, who delighted to style themselves Praefores 
(στρατηγοί). The officers of Philippi are referred to by Luke 
under this title (Acts xvi. 20-38). 

On colonies see Marquardt, Rim. Staatsverwaltung, Bd. i. 360 ff.; 

Savigny, Gesch. des rim. Rechts; ‘Coloni,’ in Philological Museum, ii. 

117; Walther, Gesch. des rom. Rechts; Arnold, Roman Provincial Aa- 


ministration. Good summaries in Conybeare and Howson’s Life and 
Epistles of St. Paul, ch. ix., and Lewin, Life and Eps. of St. P., ch. xi. 


_ The name Philippi was long preserved in the village of Fili- 
bedjik or Filibat, but has now disappeared. The only inhabited 
place near the enceinte of Philippi is the village of Ratchka, half 
‘hidden in a ravine of the mountain a little on one side of the 
ancient acropolis. In the higher town, which represents the an- 
cient Macedonian city, an enclosure of rough stones preserves 
,traces of the Hellenic wall. The whole plain at the foot of the 
mountains is covered with ruins. The circular outline of the 
theatre on the steep slope of the acropolis facing Pangzeus may 
still be seen. The neighboring rocks are covered with numerous 
pious inscriptions, and with images of the deities venerated by the 
colonists, together with the names of their worshippers. At the 
foot of these rocks are vestiges of a temple of Silvanus, one of 
.the deities most revered by the Romans of the imperial period, as 
the guardian of plantations, as one of the household gods, and 
_ as the protector of the empire and of the emperor. His worship 
extended everywhere over the provinces. Two large statues of 


XViil INTRODUCTION 


this deity have been discovered, one of which appears to have 
been the image worshipped in the sanctuary of the temple; also 
tablets containing lists of offerings for the construction and deco- 
ration of the temple, and of the names of the members of the 
sacred college. Among these names are some which are familiar 
to the readers of the Acts and Pauline epistles; as Crescens, 
Secundus, Trophimus, Pudens, etc. In the lower town is found a 
ruin known by the Turks as Dérék/er or ‘the columns,’ consisting 
of a portion of a wall and four massive columns, and which cannot 
be identified. It is supposed to have been a public bath. Lewin 
(Life and Eps. etc., i. 211) says, without any authority for the state- 
ment, that this was the forum where the apostles were scourged. 


See the Mission Archéologique de Macédoine by Heuzey and Daumet, 
one of the most interesting and important of modern contributions to the 
study of the history and antiquities of Macedonia. The expedition was 
undertaken in 1861 under the auspices of Napoleon III. 


ΠῚ 
PAUL IN MACEDONIA 


Philip and Alexander, A‘milius, Mummius, and Octavianus had 
thus prepared the way for Paul. According to the account in 
Acts xvi., Paul, at Alexandria Troas, saw in a vision a Macedonian 
man who said to him, “ Come over to Macedonia and help us.” 


Professor Ramsay (S¢. Paul, the Traveller and the Roman Citizen, 
p- 201) says that Paul did not infer the Macedonian origin of the man 
in the dream from his words, but recognised him as a Macedonian by sight; 
and since the Macedonians dressed like Greeks, it follows that the man in 
the vision was personally known to him. Professor R. also holds with Renan 
(St. Paul, ch. v.) that Luke was a Macedonian. I do not know the grounds 
of his statement that it has been generally recognised that Luke must have 
had some connection with Philippi. In our ignorance of Luke’s antecedents 
the possibility of his having been a Macedonian cannot be denied. 


Paul, therefore, embarked at Troas with Luke, Timothy, and 
Silvanus (Acts xv. 49, xvi. 1, 3. Comp. Acts xvi. 8, 10), and land- 
ing at Neapolis, proceeded over Mt. Pangzeus, about eight miles, 
to Philippi, by a branch of the great Via Egnatia. 


See Renan’s beautiful description of the route (.S%. Paul, ch. vi.). Cou- 
sinéry ( Voyage dans la Macédoine) and Tafel (De Via Militari Romanorum 


INTRODUCTION xix 


Egnatia) have endeavored unsuccessfully to identify the site of Neapolis 

with Eski Kavala, fifteen miles S.W. of Kavala. 

With the arrival of Paul at Neapolis the gospel first entered 
Europe. Yet the apostle was not consciously entering a new 
continent. The distinction between Europe and Asia did not 
exist for him. Asia, in the New Testament, denotes the Roman 
province of that name, and the word Europe does not occur. To 
St. Paul these later divisions represented only sections of the one 
Roman world. 

In Acts xvi. 12, Philippi is described as ἥτις ἐστὶν πρώτη τῆς 
μερίδος Μακεδονίας πόλις KoAwvia. There is probably an error in 
the text. To the epithet πρώτη explained as denoting the political 
rank of Philippi, it is objected that Thessalonica was the general 
capital, and that πρώτη, though common as an honorary title of — 
cities in Asia, was not so used in Greece or Macedonia. Again, 
if μερὶς be explained as denoting one of the four districts into 
which Macedonia was divided by A®milius, it may be replied 
that that division was made more than two hundred years before 
Paul’s arrival, and continued for only twenty-two years to the time 
when the country was formed into a single province ; so that the 
fourfold division had long been abandoned and was perhaps for- 
gotten. Moreover, if this division had survived, the centre of this 
district would have been Amphipolis and not Philippi. 

Even stronger are the objections against taking πρώτη to mean 
the first city which Paul reached in his Macedonian tour (so 
Erasm., Beng., Olsh., Lightf., and others). Philippi was not the 
first city of Macedonia at which Paul arrived. It cannot be 
shown that Neapolis was at this time regarded as a Thracian town 
(Lightf., Prz7., p.50. See contr. Hort, WV. 7. Notes on Select 
Readings, ad loc.). Μερίδος, on this interpretation, is apparently 
superfluous ; for Philippi was, in that case, regarded not as the 
first city of that district, but of all Macedonia. Neither ἥτις nor 
ἐστὶν suit this meaning, since both are used for characterising, and 
ἦν would probably have been chosen to mark a mere stage of the 
apostle’s journey. Moreover, πρῶτος by itself never has the local 
sense. If there is no error in the text, πρώτη, I think, must 
denote rank; though, even if it were proved that Luke was a 
Macedonian, I should not be disposed to accept Professor Ram- 
say’s view that Luke exaggerated the dignity of Philippi from 


XX INTRODUCTION 


pride in his own city (54 Paul the Traveller, etc., p. 206). Mepis, 
which does not mean ‘province’ (ἐπαρχία), may indicate some 
subdivision, not recognised in the formal political arrangement, of 
which Philippi was the centre ; and πρώτη may mark an emphasis 
on its colonial rank as possessing the jus Jfalicum (note the 
emphatic position of κολωνία) ; so that Philippi is designated as 
the most considerable colonial city of this part of Macedonia, 
πόλις κολωνία being taken together. In this designation lies the 
motive expressed by ἥτις ἐστὶν, ‘seeing it is,’ —that the promi- 
nence of the city led Paul to choose it as the starting-point of his 
missionary work. 


See Wendt’s Meyer on Acts xvi. 12; Ramsay, 7he Church in the Roman 
Empire, p.156f.; O. Holtzmann, Veutestamentliche Zeitgeschichte, p. 104; 
Lightf., Pxz/., p. 50. 


The events of St. Paul’s Macedonian ministry are related in 
Acts xvi., xvii. Imprisoned at Philippi, and then expelled by the 
magistrates, he went to Thessalonica, and thence to Bercea, from 
both which places he was driven by the fanatical opposition of the 
Jews. From Bercea he went to Athens. 

The narrative in Acts is sketchy and full of movement, dwelling 
only upon salient points, and furnishing no definite information as 
to the length of the apostle’s stay in Philippi. Slight hints like 
ἡμέρας τινάς (xvi. 12), and ἐπὶ πολλὰς ἡμέρας (xvi. 18), and the 
fact that some time must have been required to form a circle of 
“brethren ” (xvi. 40), and to develop those strong and affectionate 
relations which appear in the Philippian letter, seem to indicate a 
longer stay than might be inferred from the surface of the narrative. 


See Clemen, Die Chronologie der paulinischen Briefe, s. 192; Klépper, 
Komm. Einleit., 5. 3. 


From the dropping of the first person plural at Acts xvi. 40, it 
. has been inferred that Luke remained behind in Philippi. About 
five. years later the apostle again visited Macedonia, and having 
gone thence to Corinth, was about to return to Syria by sea, when 
a plot against his life determined him to return to Macedonia 
(Acts xix. 21, xx. 1-3; 2 Cor. i. 15, 17, ii. 13, vil. 5). The last 
meeting with his Philippian converts is noted (Acts xx. 6), after 
which he departed for Troas. This is our last notice of the 
Philippians until the time of the Roman imprisonment. 


INTRODUCTION XX1 


IV 
PAUL AT ROME 


After the shipwreck at Malta, Paul arrived at Rome in the spring 
of 56 Α.Ὁ., during the reign of Nero (54-68). Burrhus, the preeto- 
rian prefect, a rough but kindly disposed soldier, extended to him 
every liberty which the law allowed ; permitting him to occupy a 
lodging of his own under the charge of a pretorian soldier (Acts 
xxviii. 16), and allowing his friends and other visitors free access 
to him (Acts xxviii. 30). 

I follow the chronology of Harnack, Die Chronol. d. altchr. Lit, bis Euse- 
dius, Bd. i. S. 233. See also O. Holtzmann, Veutest. Zettgesch. S.132; and | 
Prof. A. McGiffert, Amer. Journ. Theol. Jan. 1897, p. 147. Against these 
see Schiirer, Gesch. d. suid, Volkes, 2 Aufl. i. S. 483 ff. (Clarks’ Trans. Divis. i. 
Vol. ii. p. 182), and Professor Ramsay, Expositor, May, 1896, p. 338, and 
April, 1897, p. 245 ff. 


The church at Rome had been for some time in existence before 
the apostle’s arrival, although we are ignorant of the circumstances 
of its foundation. In Acts xxviii. 15 its existence is assumed, and 
the company which meets Paul at Appii Forum has the character 
of a deputation. Nor is it likely that the church was insignificant 
either in numbers or influence, since the important letter to it, 
with its numerous salutations, was composed three or four years 
before his arrival at Rome. 

His influence quickly made itself felt in the pretorian guard, 
and among his visitors from the city; and the brethren of the 
Roman church were stimulated to greater boldness and zeal in 
the proclamation of the gospel (Phil. i. 12-14). His presence 
and activity also stirred up certain hostile elements in the church 
itself; men who made the preaching of the gospel a means οὗ 
promoting their own partisan interests, and of venting their envy 
and spite against the apostle. See on ch. i. 15, 16. 

Paul’s long detention before his trial was nothing unusual, as is 
shown by Josephus’ account of some Jewish priests sent by Felix 
to Rome, who were not released for three years (Jos. Vita, 3). 
The delay may have been caused by the non-arrival of his prose- 
cutors, and possibly by the loss in the shipwreck of the official 
record of the proceedings forwarded by Festus; although there 


ΧΧΙΪ INTRODUCTION 


was a law of Claudius which permitted the discharge of a prisoner 
if the prosecutors did not appear within a certain time (Di. Cass. 
Ix. 28). The pressure of judicial business also was enormous: a 
long time might have been required for bringing witnesses from 
Syria and Proconsular Asia after the arrival of the prosecutors ; and 
a vacation occurred during the winter months when judicial pro- 
ceedings were suspended (Suet. Aug. 32; Claud. 23; Galba, 14). 


See Wieseler, Chron., and Geib, Gesch. d. rémischen Criminalprocess. 


ν 
EPISTLE TO THE PHILIPPIANS: WHERE AND WHEN COMPOSED 


That the Philippian letter was written from Rome is now gener- 
ally conceded. The view of Paulus (1799), Bottger (1837), 
Rilliet (1841), Thiersch (1879), placing its composition at Czesa- 
rea, has been mostly abandoned, and even those who assign 
Colossians, Ephesians, and Philemon to Cesarea, hold that Philip- 
pians was written at Rome. The environment of the apostle as 
indicated by the letter itself, the different groups of persons which 
it includes, the number and complexity of the relations, and the 
different and influential party tendencies do not suit the narrow 
limits of a provincial city; while the pretorian guard and the 
saints of Czsar’s household clearly point to Rome. Paul’s expec- 
tation of a speedy decision of his case (ii. 23) agrees better with 
Rome. Ini. 25, 27, ii. 24, he expresses the hope of returning to 
Philippi in the event of his liberation, while in Czsarea he would 
still have been directing his thought to Rome. 

The date of composition as related to that of the three Asiatic 
letters cannot be determined with certainty. The majority of 
critics assign the epistle to the later period of Paul’s imprison- 
ment, and place it last of the four (Mey., Weiss, Alf., Ellic., K1., 
Godet, Lips., Holtzn., Jiil.). 

The reasons assigned for this opinion are the following: 1. The 
evidence assumed to be furnished by the epistle that a long period 
of imprisonment has elapsed (i. 12 ff.). 2. The abandonment of 
the apostle by his more intimate companions (ii. 20), and the 
absence of salutations from Luke and Aristarchus. 3. The time . 
required for journeys in the communications between Rome and 


INFRODUCTION XXill 


Philippi implied in the letter. 4. A spirit of depression assumed 
to be manifest in the epistle, indicating a later stage of confine- 
ment and increased severity of treatment. 5. The expectation 
expressed of a speedy release. 

Lightfoot’s ingenious discussion (Comm. p. 30 ff.) does little 
more than to show the futility of these reasons. No decisive evi- 
dence of a long imprisonment is furnished by i. 12 ff. All the 
results detailed in i. 13-17 might easily have come to pass in a 
few months after the apostle’s arrival, especially since he was in 
constant contact with the pretorian soldiers, the residents of the 
city had free access to him, and the church in Rome had been 
founded some years before. Our ignorance of the movements of 
his companions forbids any positive conclusions from the allusions | 
in the letter. The statement in ii. 20, 21, is quite inexplicable 
(see note). The names of Luke and Aristarchus, which occur in 
Colossians and Philemon, are wanting in Ephesians, together with 
that of Timothy, and an argument from silence is in any case 
precarious. The tone of depression ascribed to the epistle is a 
pure fancy. The letter is preéminently joyful and hopeful. If the 
date assigned to St. Paul’s arrival in Rome is correct, the events 
which are assumed to have increased the rigor of the apostle’s 
treatment and thus to have depressed his spirits — the death of 
Burrhus, the accession of Tigellinus as pretorian prefect, and 
Nero’s marriage to Poppzea— are too late. Poppzea’s influence 
over Nero did not begin until 58 (Tac. Amn. xiii. 45, 46), and the 
marriage was not celebrated until 62 (Tac. Aun. xiv. 60). Burrhus 
died and was succeeded by Tigellinus in 62 (Tac. Ana. xiv. 51). 
The expectation of a speedy release is also expressed in the letter 
to Philemon. 

As to the time necessary for sending a message to Philippi 
announcing Paul’s imprisonment, for Epaphroditus’ journey to 
Rome with the contribution, for the message to Philippi con- 
cerning Epaphroditus’ sickness, and for the message to Rome 
announcing that the Philippians had received this report, — the 
distance between Rome and Philippi was only seven hundred 
miles, and even with the imperfect means of travelling, all the four 
journeys could have been accomplished in four months. Light- 
foot’s attempt to reduce the four journeys to two is founded on 
the assumption that Aristarchus left Paul at Myra and proceeded 


XXiV INTRODUCTION 


to Thessalonica, thus carrying the news of the apostle’s removal 
to Rome. But for this there is not a particle of evidence. 

On the other hand, Lightfoot’s constructive argument for the 
earlier date of the letter is anything but conclusive, and is, I 
venture to think, illogical in method, although it has the weighty 
indorsement of Dr. Hort. Lightfoot urges that in style and tone 
this epistle more resembles the earlier letters than do the epistles 
to the Ephesians and Colossians ; that it represents the transition 
from the conflict with Pharisaic Judaism to that with the new type 
of error which was emerging in the Asiatic churches. But grant- 
ing the striking parallels between Romans and Philippians, and 
granting that Ephesians and Colossians exhibit an advanced stage 
of development in the churches both on the side of heresy and 
of Christian knowledge, surely it by no means follows that the 
order of composition corresponds with the stages of development. 
The special circumstances in the case of each church must be 
taken into the account. I cannot see the force of Farrar’s state- 
ment (/au/, ii. p. 419) that the Philippian epistle, if it had been 
written later than the Asiatic epistles, must have borne traces of 
the controversy with the incipient gnosticism of the Colossian 
church. Why?— “The incipient gnosticism of the Colossian 
church” had not reached Philippi. As Professor Ramsay ob- 
serves, “ It was not in Paul’s way to send to Philippi an elaborate 
treatise against a subtle, speculative heresy which had never af- 
fected that church.”” And, in any case, it is not easy to construct, 
on the data furnished by these epistles, a scale of church develop- 
ment so accurately graded as to furnish a satisfactory basis of 
reasoning in a case like this. Philippians, it is true, presents 
some striking parallels with Romans; but parallels with Romans 
may be pointed out in both Ephesians and Colossians (see v. 
Soden, Hand-Comm. Koloss., Einl. iv.) ; and it would not be dif- 
ficult to make out a case for a development in the Philippian 
church quite as advanced as that represented in Ephesians, though 
possibly on different lines. 

Nothing in the epistle compels us to place it later than the 
others, and nothing prevents our placifig it earlier; but it must 
be admitted that positive evidence for the earlier date is lacking. 
It may be remarked that the Philippians would follow the apostle’s 
movements as closely as possible. It is not impossible that the news 


INTRODUCTION XXV 


of his departure for Rome might have reached them from Asia be- 
fore his arrival, especially as the voyage was so long. In that case 
their gift would probably have reached him comparatively early. 
The tone of the letter, so far as it relates to himself, seems to indi- 
cate fresh impressions rather than those received after a long and 
tedious confinement. 


VI 
OCCASION OF THE EPISTLE 


The immediate occasion of the epistle was a contribution of 
money brought by Epaphroditus from the members of the Philip- 
pian church (ii. 25, iv. 18). They had sent him similar tokens of 
their affection on former occasions (iv. 15, 16 ; comp. 2 Cor. xi. 9) ; 
but an opportunity of repeating their gifts had been long wanting 
(iv. το). Whether from the hardships of the journey, or from 
over-exertion in forwarding Paul’s work in Rome, Epaphroditus 
became dangerously sick (ii. 27, 30). On his recovery he was 
troubled lest the Philippians should be anxious about him, and 
was eager to return in order to relieve their fears, besides suffer- 
ing, no doubt, from the homesickness peculiar to an invalid in a 
foreign land (ii. 26). Paul therefore sent him back, and sent by 
him this letter (ii. 25, 28), containing not only thanks for the gift 
(iv. 10-18), but also information about his own condition, his 
success in preaching the gospel, and other matters of special 
interest to the Philippians ; besides such exhortations and admon- 
itions as the condition of the church as reported by Epaphroditus 
seemed to demand. 


VII 
CRITICAL QUESTIONS 


The external evidence for the authenticity and genuineness of 
the epistle is substantially the same as for the principal epistles. 
It appeared in Marcion’s Canon, and Hippolytus (/aerves. v. 143, 
x. 318) says that the Sethians, an Ophite sect of the second cen- 
tury, interpreted Phil. ii. 6, 7, to explain their doctrines. The 
excerpts from the Valentinian Theodotus preserved by Clement 
of Alexandria contain two references to Phil. ii. 7 (35, 43). The 

letter of Polycarp to the Philippians appeals to the epistle or 


XXVi INTRODUCTION 


epistles of Paul to the Philippian church (c. iii. See note on 
Phil. iii. 1). A few passages which have the appearance of 
reminiscences of the Philippian letter occur in Clement (4d 
Cor. xvi., xlvii.) ; Ignatius (Rom. 11. ; Philad. viii.) ; The Epistle 
to Diognetus, 5, and Theophilus of Antioch (4d Autolycum). 
The Muratorian Canon places it among the letters of Paul. It is 
included in the Syriac (Peshitto) and Old-Latin versions. At the 
close of the second century it is in use by Irenzeus, Tertullian, and 
Clement of Alexandria. 


See Iren. iv. 18, 4; Clem. Alex. Paedag. i. 524; Strom. iv. 12, 19, 943 
Tert. De Resur. 23; Cont. Marc. v. 20; De Praescr. 26. 


It is cited in the letter from the churches of Lyons and Vienne 
to the brethren in Asia and Phrygia (a.p. 177, Euseb. . £. v. τ, 
2). Origen and Eusebius admit and use it as a work of Paul. 
From the time of Irenzeus and Clement of Alexandria its authen- 
ticity and genuineness were generally recognised. 

The epistle was first assailed by Baur (Paulus, 1845; Zh. /,, 
1849, 1852), followed by several representatives of the Tiibingen 
school, — Schwegler (/Vachap. Zeital., 1846), Planck (Zh. /., 1847), 
Kostlin (Zh. /., 1850), Volkmar (7%. /., 1856, 1857), Bruno Bauer 
(Christus und die Cisaren, 1877). The grounds of attack were: 
lack of originality and imitation of other epistles ; traces of gnostic 
ideas ; the antedating of the offices of Bishop and Deacon; and 
the disagreement of the statements concerning justification by 
faith with Paul’s statements elsewhere. The epistle was a product 
of the second century, intended to reconcile the two parties then 
struggling in the church. These parties were symbolically repre- 
sented by Euodia and Syntyche (iv. 2). Clement of Rome was a 
myth, founded upon the conversion of Flavius Clemens, the kins- 
man of Domitian. The writer of the Clementine Homilies, in 
order to represent Clement as the disciple of Peter, represents 
him as the kinsman of Tiberius. The Pauline writer of Philip- 
pians, accepting this fiction, and anxious to conciliate the Petrine 
faction, represents this fictitious disciple of Peter as the fellow- 
laborer of Paul (iv. 3). 

These objections are mainly imaginary. On the antedating of 
the episcopate see Excursus on i. 1. ‘The identification of Cle- 
ment with Flavius Clemens is absurd. The assumed imitation 


INTRODUCTION XXV1i 


of other epistles amounts only to an occasional relationship in 
expression, the absence of which would be remarkable, and which 
does not imply dependence. Baur asserted that in ii. 5-8 the 
writer had in view the gnostic Sophia, the last of the zons, which, 
in the attempt to grasp the knowledge of the absolute One, fell 
from the πλήρωμα into κένωμα or emptiness. The ambition of the 
zon was contrasted with the self-emptying of the eternal Christ. 
Volkmar explained Euodia (‘right path’) as a synonym for ortho- 
doxy, and Syntyche (‘ partner’) as designating the Gentile church. 
Such vagaries are their own refutation. 

The assault was renewed after an interval by Hitzig (Zur 
Krit. paulin. Br., 1870) ; Kneucker (Die Anfinge d. rim. Chris- 
tenthums, 1881) ; Hinsch (Zw. Zh., 1873) ; Hoekstra (Zh. /., 
1875) ; Biedermann ( Christ. Dogmatih, ii. 1885) ; and especially 
by Holsten, in a vigorous and searching critique ( 722. Zh., 1875, 
1876). 

The objections of this group of critics turned mainly on alleged 
divergencies in style and matter from the acknowledged Pauline 
epistles. The principal points are the following : 

1. The sharp contrast between the divine and the human form 
of existence (ii. 6-11) is unpauline. In 1 Cor. xv. 47-49, Paul 
conceives Christ in his preéxistence as ἄνθρωπος ἐπούρανιος, ‘a 
heavenly man,’ — an ideal man (see Excursus on ii. 6-11). Ac- 
cording to the Epistle to the Philippians, Christ’s manhood begins 
with his incarnation, while his preincarnate state is described as 
ἐν μορφῇ θεοῦ ὑπάρχων. In other words, according to 1 Corinthians, 
the preincarnate Christ would be only an ideal man. According 
to Philippians, the preincarnate Christ would belong to an order 
of beings higher than the heavenly humanity. 

The error lies in the misinterpretation of ἐπούρανιος. It is true 
that Phil. 11. 6 presents a notion of the preincarnate Christ superior 
to that of a mere heavenly man; but ἐπούρανιος in 1 Corinthians 
does not refer to the preincarnate Christ, but to the risen and glo- 
rified Christ. According to Corinthians, while the first man, Adam, 
is of earthly origin (ἐκ γῆς, xoixds), the second man, Christ, is of 
heavenly derivation (ἐξ οὐρανοῦ), and is in heaven with his glorified 
body in which he will appear at his second coming. ‘O ἐπούρανιος. 
‘ is he who is in heaven, not as the heavenly archetype existing 
ideally in the mind of God, but as exalted to heaven (Eph. iv. 8; 


XXVIil INTRODUCTION 


Phil. ii. 9). This appears from the term ἐπουράνιοι applied to 
risen and glorified Christians (comp. Phil. iii. 20, 21). The_ 
question which Paul is answering in 1 Cor. xv. 35 ff., is, “ With 
what kind of a body do they come?” and the question is an- 
swered by showing the relation of the resurrection-body, not to 
that of the preincarnate Christ, but to that of the risen and glori- 
fied Christ. Hence there is no contradiction between the ἐν 
μορφῇ θεοῦ ὑπάρχων by which Paul represents the preincarnate 
glory of Christ, and the ἐπούρανιος by which he represents Christ 
risen and glorified. In Corinthians Paul is not contemplating the 
mode of Christ’s preéxistence at all, but the mode of his existence 
as the risen and glorified Saviour, in which all true believers shall 
share. 

2. Divergences from the Pauline theology in the conception of 
Jewish law and the doctrine of justification (iii. 4-11). Such are: 
the assumption that Paul is blameless as touching the righteous- 
ness that is in the law; the antithesis of δικαιοσύνη ἡ ἐκ νόμου and 
δικαιοσύνη ἡ ἐκ θεοῦ ; the representation of justification by faith as 
δικαιοσύνη ἐπὶ τῇ πίστει ; the connecting of objective and subject- 
ive righteousness ; the putting of communion with Christ’s resur- 
rection before communion with his death. 

Some of these objections are treated in the notes on iii. 4-11. 
The words, “‘as touching the righteousness which is of the law, 
blameless” (iii. 6), have their parallel in Gal. i. 14; and, in any 
case, are used of merely legal righteousness, and are to be read in 
the light of Paul’s conception of righteousness in vs. 9. The 
doctrine of justification by faith is not treated otherwise than in 
Romans, except that the appropriation of Christ by the act of 
faith and the union of the life with Christ are combined in one 
conception and are not considered separately as in Romans. 

3. Indifference to the objective truth of his gospel (i. 15-18). 
The same parties who, in Gal. i. 6, 7; 2 Cor. xi. 4, are said to 
preach another Jesus and another gospel, are declared to be 
preaching Christ, instead of being anathematised as in Gal. i. 8, 9. 

But the parties are not the same (see notes oni. 15, 16). The 
words concerning the Judaisers in ch. iii. 2 have the indignant 
flavor of Galatians and 2 Corinthians, and exhibit no indifference ; 
to the objective truth. 

.4; Paul ‘expresses uncertainty concerning his, resurrection (ii, 


INTRODUCTION XXix 


11), which is inconsistent with the assurance that he displays 
elsewhere (Rom. v. 17, 18, 21, viii. 38, 39; 2 Cor. v.1ff.). But 
the words εἴ πως are an expression of humility and self-distrust, 
not of doubt. He elsewhere urges the necessity of caution and 
watchfulness against a possible lapse from the faith (ii. 12; 1 Cor. 
x. 12; Gal. iii. 3, v. 4), and he takes the same caution to himself 
(see note on iii.11). He displays no uncertainty as to the object- 
ive basis of salvation, and the fellowship of suffering with Christ 
as the subjective condition of sharing his glory agrees with Rom. 
vili. 17. 

5. Self-glorification on the part of Paul in setting himself before 
his readers as a type of the righteousness of the law, and after- 
wards of justification by faith (111. 4-17). This requires no answer. 
Where he speaks of his advantages as a legally righteous Jew, 
he describes them as a trusting in the flesh (vs. 4), while as 
a Christian he expressly disclaims confidence in the flesh (vs. 3, 
7-12). 

6. Contradictory expressions as to his expectations for the 
future. On the one hand, he looks for a speedy release (i. 25, 
ii. 24) ; on the other, he contemplates martyrdom (ii. 17). But 
he says nothing but what is compatible with the alternations of 
hope and fear which are natural to a prisoner ; and circumstances 
might have awakened his hopes at one time, and clouded them at 
another. 

7. The words concerning the gift of the Philippians (iv. 10-19) 
contradict 1 Thess. ii. 9. There is no contradiction. The latter 
passage confirms the statement of iv. 15, that the Thessalonians 
were not among the Macedonians who contributed to Paul while 
in Corinth. Holsten’s assertion that Paul’s way of thanking the 
Philippians is thankless, is nonsense. Nothing can be more 
delicate, more hearty, and more manly than his expression of 
gratitude. 

8. Differences in style from the acknowledged Pauline letters. 
Holsten collects these, and classifies them as non-pauline, un- 
pauline, and anti-pauline. ; 

It would seem self-evident that any writer whose mind is alive 
and whose thoughts do not move always in the same round, will 
use in one book or letter words and phrases which he does not 

use in another. The difference in subject or mood may be suffi- 


XXX INTRODUCTION 


cient to account for this. The mere counting of unique words in 
any single epistle amounts to little or nothing. To forty-three 
hapaxlegomena in Ephesians, there are above a hundred in 
Romans, and more than two hundred in 1 Corinthians. In 
Ephesians the special treatment of the unity of the Christian 
body accounts for a group of words with σύν not found in the 
other epistles. 

But Pauline words abound in this λας For a very full table, 
see Speaker's Commentary on Phil., supplementary ‘note at the 
close of the Introduction, “ On the Pauline Diction of this Epistle.” 
For parallels with Romans, see Lightf. Comm. p. 43. 

Schiirer (cit. by Godet) says: “All the reasons advanced in 
this sphere against the authenticity, have weight only with him 
who makes the Apostle Paul, that most living and mobile spirit 
the world has ever seen, a man of habit and routine, who behoved 
to write each of his letters like all the others, to repeat in the fol- 
lowing ones what he had said in the preceding, and to say it again 
always in the same way and in the same terms.” 

The authenticity and genuineness of the epistle are defended 
by Liinemann (Pauk ad Phil. Ep. contra Baurium defendit, 
1847) ; B. Briickner (22. ad Phil. Paulo auctori vindicata contra 
Baurium, 1848) ; Ernesti (Stud. u. Krit., 1848, 1851) ; Grimm 
(Zw. Th., 1873) ; Hilgenfeld (Zw. 7h., 1873, 1875, 1877, 1884) ; 
Schenkel (Bidellex. iv. 534, Christusbild der Apostel) ; Weizsacker 
(Jad. Th., 1876; Apost. Zeital.) ; A. Harnack (ZXG. ii, 1878) ; 
Mangold (Der Rémerbrief, 1884, and Bleek’s Zin/. in d. XN. T., 
1886) ; Pfleiderer (Urchristenthum,; Paulinismus) ; Davidson 
(Introd. to the Study of the N.T.); Lipsius (Hand-Comm. ii., 
Einl. z. Phil.) ; Godet (Introd. au Nouv. Test., pt. 1., 1893) ; 
B. Weiss (Lehré. ad. inl. in d. N. T., 1889) ; Jiilicher (znd. in 
ad. N. T., 1894) ; Klopper (Paulus an die Philipper, 1893) 

H. J. Holtzmann (Zin/. in d. N. T. 3 Aufl., 1892) says: “It 
is the testament of the apostle which we have before us, and he 
wrote it at Rome.” It is accepted by Reuss and Renan. 

For the history of the controversy, see the Introds. of Holtz- 
mann and Weiss, and Lips. in the Hand-Comm., Bd. ii. See also 
Knowling (Zhe Witness of the Epistles, p. 6 ff.) and Theo. Zahn 
(Die Briefe des Paulus seit fiinfzig Jahren im Feuer der Kritih, 
ZWL., 1889). 


INTRODUCTION XXxi 


VIII 
INTEGRITY 


To any one reading this epistle as a familiar letter of Paul to a 
greatly beloved church, intended to inform them concerning his 
own circumstances, to thank them for their generous care for him, 
and to give them such counsel as his knowledge of their condition 
might suggest, its informal and unsystematic character, and its 
abrupt transitions from one theme to another, will appear entirely 
natural. Modern criticism, however, refuses to be satisfied with 
this view of the case, and has discovered, as it thinks, substantial 
reasons for challenging the integrity of the letter. 

The principal stumbling-block is at 111. 2, where, after being 
about to close the letter, as is claimed (vs. 1), the apostle begins 
afresh, and proceeds to the discussion of most important matters, 
and then returns thanks for the contribution, which the letter con- 
veyed to Philippi by Epaphroditus could not have omitted. This, 
it is asserted, forms an abrupt and harsh transition, since the point 
at which he proposed to close is really the middle of the epistle. 
Holtzmann remarks that “the rush of all the tides of criticism 
upon this passage raises the suspicion of a hidden rock.” 


Stephan Lemoyne (Varia Sacra), Heinrichs (in Koppe’s NW. T., 1803), 
Paulus (Hezdelb. Jhrb., 1812), Hausrath (VV. 7. Zettgesch. iii. 2 Aufl., 1873- 
1877; Der Apostel Paulus, 2 Aufl., 1872), Weisse (Beitr. 2. Kritik d. 
paulin, Br., 1867), —all assumed two letters. The last four assumed that 
iii. I-iv. 20 was addressed to a narrower circle of readers, —~- perhaps the 
superintendents of the church. MHausrath held that the first letter was 
written after Paul’s first hearing before the imperial tribunal, and the sec- 
ond some weeks later, after his receipt of the gift. Schrader (Der Apostel 
Paulus) regarded iii. I-iv. 9 as an interpolation; while Ewald (Sendschr. 
des Ap. Paulus, 1857), Schenkel (Azbellex.), and Reuss (Gesch. d. heil. 
Schr. N. T., 1874) held the portion from iii. 1 to be a later addition, 
prompted by fresh information received by Paul. Vélter (7%. /., 1892) 
holds that there were two letters, —a genuine and a spurious one. The 
former consisted of i. 1, 2 (exc. ἐπισκ. καὶ διακ.), 3-7, 12-26, ii. 17-30, 
iv. 10-20, 21, and perhaps 23; the latter of i. 8-11, 27-30, ii. 1-16, iii. 1- 
iv.9. Liinemann, Ewald, Schenkel, Hilgenfeld, and Mangold hold that 
iii, I implies former and lost Philippian letters; and the question thus 
becomes complicated with the interpretation of the passages in Polyc. ad 
Phil, iii., xiii. (see note on iii. 1). 


ΧΧΧΙΪ INTRODUCTION 


The theory of two letters rests mainly on the assumption that τὸ 
λοιπόν in ili. 1 indicates an intention to close the letter. But while 
τὸ λοιπόν may mean ‘ finally,’ it also means ‘for the rest’; ‘as to 
what remains,’ as 1 Thess. iv. 1; 2 Thess. iii. 1. The phrase is 
common with Paul where he loosely attaches, even in the middle 
of an epistle, a new subject to that which he has been discussing. 
In 1 Thess. iv. two entire chapters follow τὸ λοιπόν in vs. 1. If 
Paul had meant to close the letter at iii. 1, he would surely have 
expressed his thanks for the Philippians’ gift before reaching that 
point. Τὸ λοιπόν means there ‘as to what remains,’ and is an 
introduction to what follows, not the close of what precedes. 

The abrupt transition and apparent lack of connection accord, 
as has been remarked, with the unsystematic, informal, familiar 
character of the whole letter. Ifthe Judaistic and Libertine influ- 
ences as a germ of discord demanded such an utterance as iii. 2 ff., 
the transition was not easy to make in a familiar letter to those 
with whom the apostle’s relations were so intimate and affection- 
ate. The want of connection, however, is rather apparent than 
real, since the divisions likely to be created by these dangerous 
influences would militate against that unity and concord which the 
apostle urges in the former part of the letter. Without specifying 
and pressing some such definite points, the earlier exhortations 
might have appeared abstract and vague. 

There seem to be, therefore, no sufficient grounds for disputing ᾿ 
the integrity of the epistle. If the partition theory is admitted, 
the attempt to fix the dividing lines must be regarded as hopeless 
in the face of the differences between critics. 


See R. A. Lipsius (Hand-Comm. Einl. z. Phil.), Holtzmann (Zini. 
N. T.), Ki6pper (Komm. Einl.), Lightfoot (Pi/. p. 69). 


ΙΧ 
CONTENTS AND GENERAL CHARACTER 


The opening salutation is of unusual length, consisting of the 
first eleven verses, and containing thanks to God for the Philip- 
pians’ former Christian fellowship with the apostle, and their 
cooperation in promoting the gospel, expressions of confidence 
in the completion of the good work begun in them by God, and 
prayer for their spiritual growth. 


INTRODUCTION XXXiil 


From vs. 12 to vs. 26 St. Paul describes his own condition as a 
prisoner, the progress of the gospel, the work of his opposers, 
the increased zeal and boldness of the Christians in Rome, and 
expresses his own feelings in view of the alternative of his speedy 
death or of his continuing to live and labor for the church. 

With vs. 27 he begins an exhortation to Christian unity and 
courage which extends to the fourth verse of ch. ii., where he 
introduces the example of Jesus Christ as an exhibition of the 
humility and self-abnegation which are essential to the maintenance 
of their fellowship. A few words of exhortation follow ; and ch. ii. 
closes with an expression of the hope of his speedy release, his 
intention of sending Timothy to Macedonia, and the announce- 
ment of the sickness, recovery, and return of Epaphroditus. 

Chapter 111. opens with an exhortation to joy, after which he 
proceeds to warn the church against the possible attempts of the 
Judaisers to influence its members, characterises them in severe 
terms, and contrasts their religious attitude and teachings with 
those of the true household of faith; the true circumcision with 
the false ; the power of faith with the inefficiency of works and 
ordinances ; and adduces in illustration a comparison of his own 
early education, aims, and religious attainments with his present 
position and hopes as a Christian. He follows this with an exhor- 
tation to steadfastness, a lament over those who had yielded to 
the influence of the Epicurean Libertines, and had thus fallen into 
sensuality and worldliness, and a contrast of such with the citizen 
of heaven, who minds not earthly things, but confidently awaits 
the appearing of the Lord Jesus as Saviour. 

Chapter iv. begins with a repetition of the exhortation to stead- 
fastness. Two prominent women of the church are urged to 
reconcile their differences, and a former fellow-laborer of the 
apostle is entreated to aid them in this. Then follow exhorta- 
tions to forbearance, trustfulness, prayer, and giving of thanks, to 
the cultivation of all holy and gracious thoughts and dispositions, 
and to the imitation of his own Christian example as they had 
seen it in the days of their former intercourse. ‘To all is added 
the promise of the comfort of God’s peace. 

With iv. τὸ begins the acknowledgment of the gift received 
from the church, accompanied with hearty commendations of 
“their habitual thoughtfulness and generous care for himself, and 


XXXIV INTRODUCTION 


an expression of his assurance that such a spirit and such ministry 
will redound to their spiritual growth. 

The closing salutations are general. No names are mentioned. 
The epistle ends with the benediction, “The grace of the Lord 
Jesus Christ be with your spirit.” 

The pervading tone of the letter is imparted by Paul’s strong 
personal attachment to the church, in which respect it resembles 
the first Thessalonian epistle. It is entirely devoid of official 
stateliness. The official title is dropped from the opening saluta- 
tion, and the apostle greets the church as their friend and fellow- 
servant of Jesus Christ. The character of the epistle is almost 
wholly commendatory, in strong contrast with the epistle to the 
Galatians and with portions of the two Corinthian letters. While 
2 Corinthians is tumultuous, often stern, sometimes almost men- 
acing, this letter flows on to the end in a steady stream of thankful 
joy. It breathes the spirit of unimpaired confidence. It some- 
what resembles Ephesians in the freedom with which the apostle 
abandons himself to those spontaneous impulses of thought which 
lead away from the direct line of his subject into the profound 
depths of some divine counsel, or bear his soul upward in impas- 
sioned prayer. It exhibits ‘none of the sensitiveness about the 
behavior of his converts to himself which appears in Galatians 
and 2 Corinthians ; none of the earnestness about points of differ- 
ence, none of the consciousness of the precarious basis of his 
authority in the existing state of the two churches” (Jowett). 
There is the assumption throughout of frank understanding and 
Christian friendship. 

The epistle is also marked by the absence of formulated doc- 
trinal statement. It exhibits the substance and heart of the gospel 
rather than its relation to any specific form of doctrinal error. 
The doctrinal points elaborated in other epistles are here matters 
of allusion rather than of discussion. Between the apostle and 
his readers there is assumed a community of faith in the truths 
to which he so confidently appeals for the enforcement of all that 
is pure, lovely, and of good report, and a knowledge of those 
truths which renders formal instruction unnecessary. 

Where points of doctrine are touched, it is invariably with a 
view to their practical application. The ethical character of the 
epistle is very pronounced. Even the splendid passage, ii. 5-11, 


INTRODUCTION XXXV 


is introduced, not for the purpose of formulating the doctrine of 
Christ’s preéxistence and of defining the nature of his humanity 
as related to his preincarnate condition, but in order to enforce 
the practical exhortation to humility. Thus, too, the doctrine of 
justification by faith as treated in ch. iii. lacks none of the essen- 
tial elements of the discussion in Romans ; yet it gains in practical 
force and attractiveness by being intertwined with the doctrine of 
mystical union with Christ. It is this which makes that passage, 
brief as it is, so valuable for the study of the real Pauline doctrine 
of justification, affording as it does no room for that scholastic 
and mechanical interpretation according to which justification is 
resolved into a forensic adjustment effected by a legal fiction of 
imputed righteousness. 

Yet the attitude of the epistle towards doctrinal error is neither 
hesitating nor compromising. Its dealing with the Judaisers in 
ch. iii. reminds us that the writer is still the Paul of the Galatian 
and second Corinthian letters. None the less it bears witness to 
the discriminating quality of a ripe charity, to the sound wisdom 
of Christian love which knows how to draw the line between weak- 
ness and perverseness ; between the occasional lapses of Christian 
immaturity and the wicked obstinacy of an estranged heart; 
between the mistakes of an untutored conscience and the selfish 
persistence of unholy desire. 

But while the character of the epistle is ethical rather than doc- 
trinal or controversial, it gives no countenance to the tendency to 
resolve the gospel into a mere code of morals. The moral inspira- 
tion which it represents has its impelling centre in a person and a 
life, and not ina code. The personal Christ is its very heart. It 
exhibits Christ zz Paul rather than defore him. Christ is not a 
subject of controversy ; he is not simply a pattern of conduct. 
He is the sum of Paul’s life. Paul’s ideal is to be found in him. 
His death is not a sorrowful reminiscence ; it has been shared by 
the apostle in his own death to sin. The view of the resurrection, 
which this letter in common with that to the Romans presents, is 
a standing rebuke to the superficial conception and the loose 
grasp which the church too often brings to that truth. The res- 
urrection of the Lord is to Paul a present, informing energy and 
not only a memory and a hope. He would know the power of 
the resurrection now and here as well as hereafter. He not only 


XXXVI INTRODUCTION 


lives according to Christ’s life, he lives it. Christ loves, obeys, 
suffers, sympathises, toils, and hopes in him. Under the power 
of this life his own natural affection is transfigured. He knows 
not men after the flesh, but loves and longs for them in the heart 
of Jesus Christ. 

With the exhibition of these facts goes the corresponding em- 
phasis of the apostle’s personality. The letter is more distinct- 
ively personal than any of the epistles to the churches except 
2 Corinthians. In this lies largely its peculiar fascination. But 
the personality is accentuated on a different side. Its sensitive, 
indignant, self-vindicatory aspect, so marked in the Corinthian 
letter, is completely in the background here. The Paul of the 
Philippian letter is not the man whose apostolic credentials have 
been challenged, and whose personal motives have been impugned ; 
not the vindicator of himself and of his ministry against the pre- 
tensions of false apostles; not the missionary who is reluctantly 
constrained in his own defence to unfold the record of his labors 
and sufferings. He is the disciple who counts all things but loss 
for the excellency of the knowledge of Christ Jesus his Lord ; for 
whom to live is Christ, and to die is to be with Christ. What a 
blending of the restfulness of faith with the tenseness of aspira- 
tion! What an upreach of desire! With an experience behind 
him unique in its depth and richness and variety, with the mem- 
ory of personal vision of Christ and of ravishment into the third 
heaven, with a profound knowledge of the mysteries of divine 
truth won through heart-shaking moral crises, in solitary medita- 
tion and in the vast experience of his missionary career, — his 
attainment is only a point for a larger outlook, an impulse to more 
vigorous striving. In Christ he is in a sphere of infinite possibili- 
ties, and he counts not himself to have apprehended, but stretches 
forward under the perpetual stress of his heavenward calling. 


TEXT 


THE epistle presents no textual questions of importance. The 
authority for the sources is Tischendorf’s 8th ed. Crit. May. I 
have also used the 4th ed. of Scrivener’s /atroduction to the Critt- 
cism of the N. T., ed. Miller, and in some places have noted the 
readings of Weiss in his recent Zextkritische Untersuchungen und © 
Textherstellung, 1896. 

The text followed is that of Westcott and Hort with two or 
three exceptions. 

The following manuscripts are referred to: 


PRIMARY UNCIALS 


Ν᾿ Cod. Sinaiticus: 4th century. Discovered by Tischendorf in the convent 
of St. Catherine on Mt. Sinai, in 1859. Now at St. Petersburg. Con- 
tains both epistles complete. Correctors: ΝΆ, nearly contemporary; 
xb, 6th century; x°, beginning of 7th century, treated by two correct- 
ors, — NC8 νοῦ, 

A. Cod. Alexandrinus: 5th century. British Museum. Contains both 
epistles entire. 

B. Cod. Vaticanus.: 4th century. Vatican Library. Contains both epistles 

_», entire. Correctors: B?, nearly the same date; B%, roth or 11th century. 

C. Cod. Ephraem: 5th century. Palimpsest. National Library, Paris. 
Very defective. Wanting from τοῦτο οὖν (Eph. iv. 17) to καὶ τί αἱρή- 
σομαι (Phil i. 22), and from pew (Βενιαμειν) (Phil. iii. 5) to the end. 
Correctors: (2, 6th century; C%, 9th century. — 

D. Cod. Claromontanus. 6th century. Grzeco-Latin. National Library, 
Paris. Contains both epistles entire. Corrector: D>, close of 6th 
century. ; 

F. Cod. Augiensis: gth century. Greco-Latin. Library of Trinity College, 
Cambridge. Philippians entire; Philemon wanting in the Greek from 
πεποιθὼς (vs. 21) to the end. 

G. Cod. Boernerianus.: gth century. Greco-Latin. Dresden. Wanting 
Greek and Latin, Philem. 21-25. 


An asterisk added to the title of a MS., as D*, signifies a correction made 
by the original scribe. 
XXXVii 


XXXVIli TEXT 


ae 


SECONDARY UNCIALS 


Cod. Mosquensis : gth century. Moscow. Contains both epistles entire. 

Cod. Angelicus: oth century. Angelican Library of Augustinian monks 
at Rome. Wanting from ἐξουσίαν (Heb. xiii. 10) to the end of 
Philemon. 

Cod. Porphyrianus : beginning of 9th century. Palimpsest. St. Peters- 
burg. Both epistles entire, but many words illegible. 


MINUSCULES 


National Library, Paris: 9th or roth century. Both epistles entire. 


. British Museum: 11th century. Both epistles entire. 
. Library of Town Council of Leicester: 15th century. Both epistles 


entire. See Miller’s Scrivener, vol. i. 202. 


. Bodleian Library: 11th century. Both epistles entire. 
. Vienna: I1th century. Both epistles entire. 
. Vatican: 11th century. Philippians entire; Philemon mutilated. 


137. Paris: 13th or 14th century. Both epistles entire. 
VERSIONS 
Latin : 
Vetus Latina (Lat. Vet.). Vulgate (Vulg.). 
Egyptian : 


Coptic, Memphitic, or Bohairic (Cop.). | Bashmuric (Basm.). 
Sahidic (Sah. ). 


Syriac : 
Peshitto (Pesh.). Syr.4t (Peshitto and Harclean 
Harclean (Harcl.). versions). 
Syr.#h (Schaaf’s ed. of Peshitto). Syr.P (Harclean). 


Other versions : 


Armenian (Arm. ). Ethiopic (£th.). 
Gothic (Goth.). 


COMMENTARIES 


PATRISTIC 


Chrysostom, Theodoret, Gicumenius, Theophylact, Theodore of | 
Mopsuestia. 

Chrysostom’s commentary is in the form of fifteen homilies. It 
is not regarded as one of his best, but it illustrates his peculiarities 
as an expositor: his honest effort to discover and interpret his 
author’s meaning; his sound grammatical and historical treat- 
ment; his avoidance of forced and fanciful allegorical interpre- 
tations ; his felicitousness in illustration, fluency of style, dramatic 
power, and general knowledge of Scripture. Migne’s Patrol- 
gia, Paris, 1863; Trans. Library of the Fathers, Oxford, 1843 ; 
Schaff’s Wicene and Post-Nicene Fathers. 

Theodoret: simple and literal, mingling the expository and 
apologetic. Migne. 

The commentaries of Theodore of Mopsuestia remain only in a 
few Greek fragments and a Latin version. They are valuable as 
a protest against the vicious allegorical method of the Alexandrian 
school. Theodore is distinguished by close adherence to the text, 
attention to grammatical points and textual variations, — by his 
exegetical instinct and his effort to adhere to the line of his 
author’s thought. Zheodore of Mopsuestia’s Commentary on the 
Minor Epistles of St. Paul: The Latin Version with the Greek 
Fragments. Ed. from the MSS., with Notes and an Introduction, 
by H. B. Swete, Cambridge University Press. 


EARLIER COMMENTARIES 


Among these may be named those of Erasmus, Bucer, Zwingli, 
Beza, Calvin, Calixtus, Daillé, Musculus or Meusslin, Velasquez, 
ΧΧΧΙΧ 


xl COMMENTARIES 


Le Clerc, Hyperius, Vorstius, Grotius, Crocius, Aretius, Piscator, 
Estius, a Lapide, Breithaupt, am Ende, Rheinwald, Matthies, van 
Hengel, Hoelemann, Bengel, Rilliet. 


JoHN CALVIN is marked by solid learning, contempt for exegetical tricks, 
independence, thoroughness, terseness, and precision 
of language. 

JOHN ALBERT BENGEL: Gnomon Novi Testamenti. Ed. of Steudel, 1855. 
Translations by Fausset, Edinburgh, and Lewis and 
Vincent, Philadelphia, 1860. While most of his criti- 
cal work is obsolete, he remains distinguished for keen 
spiritual insight, terse and pithy diction, and suggest- 
ive exposition of the force and bearing of individual 
words. Always mentioned with respect by modern 
commentators. 

A. RILLIET: Commentatre sur ὦ ’Epitre de l’Apotre Paul aux Philip- 
piens. 1841. With illustrative essays. Learned, — 
not controversial or dogmatic, — interesting, Scriptural, 
clear in statement. Issued before the attacks of the 
Tiibingen school. 


MODERN COMMENTARIES 


HENRY ALFORD: Greek Testament, 1849-1861 and later. Largely a digest 
of German exegesis which he was the first to introduce 
to the scholars of the established church in England. 
He is judicial rather than original, sometimes too much 
given to balancing opinions after the earlier German 
method; but in his treatment of this epistle, his judg- 
ments show considerable independence and decisive- 
ness, and the commentary contains matter which is 
still valuable. 

W. M. L. DE WETTE: Kurzgefasstes exegetisches Handbuch zum Neuen Testa- 
ment. Kurze Erklarung der Briefe an die Kolosser, 
an Philemon, an die Epheser und Philipper. 1836- 
1848. Wide and accurate scholarship; sound exegeti- 
cal tact, — independent, acute, concise. 

H. A. W. MEYER: KXritisch exegetisches Handbuch iiber die Briefe an die 
Philipper, Kolosser, und an Philemon, 5 Aufl. A. H. 
Franke, 1886. New ed. in preparation. This volume 
of the Kommentar tiber das Neue Testament was pre- 
pared by Dr. Meyer’s own hand. Meyer stands in the 
very front rank of exegetes. Great learning; remark- 
able exegetical insight; devout, fair, independent, clear 
and forcible in statement; strong historic sense. He 
leans somewhat towards excessive literalism, and is not 


COMMENTARIES xli 


_a good authority on text. The American edition, 1885, 
4th Germ., contains the notes of President T. Dwight 
of Yale University. These are discriminating and help- 
ful. Dr. Dwight has a rare faculty of putting into a 
clear and simple form the factors of a complicated 
exegetical discussion. 

C. J. ELLIcotT: A Critical and Grammatical Commentary on St. Paul’s 
Lpistles to the Philippians, Colossians, and Philemon. 
5th ed. Ripe exegetical judgment; careful discrimi- 
nation of grammatical niceties; remarkable power of 
stating fine distinctions and shades of meaning; great 
accuracy. His commentary is still most valuable. 

J. B. Licutroot: Sz. Paul’s Epistle to the Philippians. Revised Text with 
Introduction, Notes, and Dissertations. ist ed. 1868; 
12th ed. 1896, a reprint of the revised and slightly 
altered 4th ed. of 1885. Has long held a very high 
rank among commentaries on this epistle. The la- 
mented author’s large and varied learning appears 
especially in the essays and excursuses which so de- 
lightfully exhibit the historical setting of the letter. In 
point of exegesis, the commentary, while always sug- 
gestive, is not equal to some others. 

B. WEISS: Der Philipperbrief ausgesetat und die Geschichte seiner 
Auslegung kritisch dargestellt, 1859. A most thorough 
piece of work. It leaves no point untouched, and treats 
every point with ample learning, conscientious pains- 
taking, independence, and positiveness. It is valuable 
in studying the history of the exegesis. 

ALBERT KLOPPER: Der Brief des Apostel Paulus an die Philipper. 1893. 
A commentary which must be reckoned with. Care- 
fully and conscientiously done, with adequate scholar- 
ship. Needlessly elaborated; too diffuse; but the 
reader who has the patience to make his way through 
the mazes of an involved style will commonly be re- 
warded for his pains. His critical tendencies are radi- 
cal, but he accepts and defends the authenticity of the 
epistle. 

JOsEPH AGAR BEET: 4 Commentary on St. Paul’s Epistles to the Ephesians, 
Philippians, and Colossians, and to Philemon. 1891. 
With a good scholarly basis. It can hardly be called 
a popular commentary, but does not meet the demands 
of a full critical commentary. In the attempt to con- 
dense, some things are passed over with mere state- 
ment which deserve more careful notice. 

J. RAwson Lumby: The Epistle of Paul to the Philippians. Schaff’s Popular 
Commentary, 1882. Bright, interesting, and suggestive. 


xlii 


KARL BRAUNE: 


R. A. Lipsius: 


H. von SODEN: 


JouHN EADIE: 


COMMENTARIES 


Die Briefe Sti Pauli an die Epheser, Kolosser, Philipper, 
theologisch-homiletisch bearbeitet. Lange’s Bibelwerk, 
1867. Trans. with additions by H. B. Hackett, Schaff’s 
Lange, 1870. The value of Lange’s Bibelwerk is im- 
paired by an accumulation of doctrinal, ethical, homi- 
letical, and practical material. The quality of Dr. 
Hackett’s work is always good, and his additions are 
valuable. 

Bricfe an die Galater, Romer, Philipper. Hand-Com- 
mentar zum Neuen Testament, von Holtzmann, Lip- 
situs, Schmiedel, und von Soden. Bad. ii. Abth. 2, 2 
Aufl., 1892. In striking contrast with most earlier Ger- 
man commentaries in which conflicting opinions are 
elaborately discussed; terse and condensed; learned, 
acute, penetrating, and clear. Introduction valuable. 
Represents the radical German school of N. T. criticism. 

Der Brief des Apostels Paulus an die Philipper. 1889. 
A charming homiletical exposition. 

A Commentary on the Greek Text of the Epistle of Paul 
to the Philippians, 2d ed. 1884. A full and useful 
commentary; too much of the homiletic element. 


ABBREVIATIONS 


ECCLESIASTICAL WRITERS 


Ambrost. Ambrosiaster. Ign. Ignatius. 

Ans. Anselm. Jer. Jerome. 

Aug. Augustine. Joh. Dam. John of Damascus. 
Chr. Chrysostom. Jos. Josephus. 

Clem. Alex. Clement of Alexandria. | Just. M. Justin Martyr. 
Clem. Rom, Clement of Rome. (Ec. CEcumenius. 

Cyr. Alex. Cyril of Alexandria. Polyc. Polycarp. 

Euseb. Eusebius. Tert. Tertullian. 

Greg. Nys. Gregory of Nyssa. Thdrt. Theodoret. 

Hil. Hilary. Theo. Mop. Theodore of Mopsuestia. 
Hippol. Hippolytus. Theoph. Theophylact. 


CLASSICAL WRITERS 


&s. fEschylus. Hdt. Herodotus. 

App. Appian. Hom. Homer. 

Aristid. Aristides. Juv. Juvenal. 

Aristoph. Aristophanes. Ov. Ovid. 

Aristot. Aristotle. Petron. Petronius. 

Athen. Athenzus. Pind. Pindar. 

Corp. 1. Lat. Corpus Inseriptionum | Plut. Plutarch. 
Latinarum. Polyb. Polybius. 

Corp.I.Gr. Corpus Inscriptionum | Q. Curt. Quintus Curtius. 
Graecarum. Soph. Sophocles. 

Dem. Demosthenes. Suet. Suetonius, 

Diod. Sic. Diodorus Siculus. Tac. Tacitus. 

Dion. H. Dionysius of Halicarnas- | Ter. Terentius. 
sus. Thuc. Thucydides. 

Eur. Euripides. Xen. Xenophon. 


COMMENTATORS AND WRITERS ON N. T. 


Alf. Alford. Aq. Aquila. 
am E. am Ende. B. Crus. Baumgarten Crusius. 


Ead. 
Ellic. 
Erasm. 
Ew. 
Grot. 
Heinr. 
Hack. 
Hofn. 
Holtzn. 
Holst. 
Hoel. 
Jil. 
Kl. 
Lips. 
Lightf. 
Lum. 


Burt. 
Crem. 


Herz. 


Hesych. 


Suid. 
Thay. 
Win. 


WH. 
Tisch. 


R.V. 
A.V. 
TR. uf 


ABBREVIATIONS 
Bengel. Luth. Luther. 
Bleek. Mey. Meyer. 
Calovius. Matth. Matthies. 
Calvin. Mich. Michaelis. 
Conybeare and Howson. | Nedr. Neander. 
Crocius. Pfl. Pfleiderer. 
De Wette. Pisc. Piscator. 
Dwight. Rhw. Rheinwald. 
Eadie. Ril. Rilliet. 
Ellicott. Rosenm. Rosenmiiller. 
Erasmus. Str. Storr. 
Ewald. Symm. Symmachus. 
Grotius. v. ΕἸ. von Flatt. 
Heinrichs. van Heng. van Hengel. 
Hackett. van Oos. van Oosterzee. 
Hofmann. v. Sod. von Soden. 
Holtzmann. Weizs. Weizsacker. 
Holsten. Westc. Westcott. 
Hoelemann. Wetst. Wetstein. 
Jiilicher. Wiesel. Wieseler. 
Kldépper. Wies. Wiesinger. 
Lipsius. W. St. Vincent: Word Studies 
Lightfoot. in the N. T. 


Lumby. 


GRAMMARIANS AND ESI COGRAPHERS 


Burton: WV. 7. Moods and Tenses. 

Cremer: Bidlico- Theological Lexicon of N. T. Greek. 

Herzog: Keal-Encyclopadie fiir protestantische Theologie und 
Kirche. 

Hesychius: Lexicon. 

Suidas: Lexicon. 

Thayer: Greek-English Lexicon of the N. T. 

Winer: Grammar of N. T. Greek, 8th ed. of Eng. Transl. by 
Moulton. Grammatik des neutestamentlichen Sprachidioms, 
8 Aufl., von P. W. Schmiedel. 1 Theil, 1894. 


TEXTUAL 


Westcott and Hort: The New Testament in the Original Greek. 

Tischendorf: Movum Testamentum Graece. LEditio Octava Cri- 
tica Major. 

Revised Version of 1881. 

Authorized Version. 

Textus Receptus. 


ABBREVIATIONS xlv 


PERIODICALS 


Zw.Th. Zeitschrift fiir wissenschaftliche Theologie. 

Th. LZ. Theologische Literaturzeitung. 

LUTE Theologische Jahrbiicher. 

Th. T. Theologisch Tijdschrift. 

Sp. Th. Jahrbiicher fiir protestant. Theologie, 

Stud. τε. Krit. Studien und Kritiken. 

Jad. Th. Jahrbiicher fiir deutsche Theologie. 

Heidelb. Jhrb. Heidelberg Jahrbiicher. 

ZEG. Zeitschrift fiir Kirchengeschichte. 

ZWL. Luthardt’s Zeitschrift fiir kirchl, wissenschaft und kirchl, Leben, 


OTHER ABBREVIATIONS 


Apocr. Apocrypha. Const. Construe. 

Art. Article. LXX Septuagint Version. 
Bib. Gk. _ Biblical Greek. Sap. Wisdom of Solomon. 
Bib. Bible. Sir. Wisdom of Sirach. 
Class. Classics or Classical. = Equivalent to. 


Comp. Compare. 


TO THE PHEEPETIANS 


L 1-11. THE PROLOGUE 


THE Prologue contains : 


AN ADDRESS AND GREETING (1-2) } 
A THANKSGIVING (3-5) ; 
A COMMENDATION AND PRAYER (6-11). 


Paul and Timothy, bendservants of Jesus Christ, send greeting 
to the members and officers of the church at Philippi. Grace and 
peace to you from God our father and the Lord Jesus Christ. 

All my remembrance of you ts mingled with thanksgiving to God. 
On every occasion of my prayers I joyfully make my petition for you 
all, giving thanks for your cooperation in promoting the gospel from 
the time it was first preached among you until the present, and with 
confidence that God will perfect the good work which he has begun 
in you and will show it completed in the day when Christ shall 
appear. And my confidence in you is justified by my personal 
affection for you, by your sympathy with me in my imprisonment, 
and by the aid which you give me in the defence and establishment 
of the gospel; thus showing yourselves to be sharers in the grace 
which enables me to preach Christ and to suffer for his sake. 

God ts my witness how I long after you all with a Christly affec- 
tion. I pray that you may abound in intelligent and discriminating 
love: that in your inquiries into truth and duty you may approve 
that which is supremely good: that you may be sincere and blame- 
less in view of the day when Christ shall appear: and that you 
may be filled with the fruit of righteousness which shall redound 
to the glory and praise of God. 


The character of the whole Epistle is reflected in this introduc- 
tion. It is unofficial, affectionate, familiar, unlike the opening of 
B I 


2 PHILIPPIANS [1.1 


the Galatian Epistle, and more nearly resembling the introductions 
to the two Thessalonian letters. At the same time it is solemn 
and deeply earnest. 


ADDRESS AND GREETING 


1. Παῦλος καὶ Τιμόθεος : So in the introductions of 2 Cor., Col., 
and Philem., and of 1 and 2 Thess. where the name of Silvanus is 
added. Timothy was well known to the Philippian Church as 
Paul’s intimate friend and companion. He was with Paul at 
Rome. He had been his companion in his first visit to Mace- 
donia (Acts xvi. 1, 3, 10,13). He had visited Macedonia later 
(Acts xix. 22, xx. 1, 4); and Paul was proposing to send him 
again as his representative to the Philippian Church (Phil. ii. 19-- 
23). His name, however, in this letter, is associated with Paul’s 
only in the salutation, although the omission of Paul’s apostolic 
title is not due to his naming Timothy with himself. (Comp. 
2 Cor. i. 1; Col. i. 1.) That Timothy acted as amanuensis is pos- 
sible, but is not indicated by anything in this letter. The omission 
of the title “‘ apostle’ (comp. Introductions to 1 and 2 Cor., Rom., 
and Gal.) accords with the familiar and unofficial character of the 
letter, and also with the fact that his apostolic claims were not 
challenged by a Judaising party in Philippi as they were in Galatia 
and Corinth. 

Δοῦλοι Χριστοῦ Ἰησοῦ: Δοῦλος occurs in Paul’s introductory 
᾿ salutations only here and in Rom. and Tit. The phrase ‘ bond- 

servants of Jesus Christ’ exhibits the general conception under 
which ‘apostle’ is classed. Jerome observes: “ Ambo servi, non 
ambo apostoli. Omnis enim apostolus servus, non omnis autem 
servus apostolus.”” The servile element does not enter into Paul’s 
use of the expression. It carries for him the thoughts of cheerful 
and willing service which, in his view, is inseparable from true 
freedom (Rom. vi. 18, 22) ; of dependence upon Christ; of 
ownership by Christ (1 Cor. iii. 23, vii. 22) ; and of identification 
with Christ in his assuming the form of a bondservant (Phil. ii. 7). 
The term may be slightly colored with a reference to his special 
calling, as is διάκονος in 1 Cor. iii. 5; 2 Cor. iii. 6; Eph. iii. 7. 
-He would thus announce himself as not acting in his own name, 
but as the agent of another. (Comp. Gal. i. 10; Rom. i. 1; 
Col. iv. 12.) The phrase si! 4ay, LXX δοῦλος θεοῦ or κυρίου, is 
often applied to the O.T. prophets ina body. (See Amos iii. 7 ; 
Jer. vii. 25 ; Ezra ix. 11; Dan. ix. 6.) Also to Moses, Jos. i. 2 
(6 θεράπων) ; to Joshua, Jud. ii. 8 (δοῦλος) ; to David, Ps. xxxvi. 
(xxxv.), title, xxviii. (Ixxvii.) 70, Ixxxix. (Ixxxviii.) 4, 21 (δοῦλος). 
It is found in the introductory greetings of Rom., Tit., Jas., Jude, 
2 Pet., “showing,” as Professor Sanday justly remarks, “that as 
the apostolic age progressed, the assumption of the title became 


1.1] THE PROLOGUE 3 


established on a broad basis. But it is noticeable how quietly 
St. Paul steps into the place of the prophets and leaders of the 
Old Covenant, and how quietly he substitutes the name of his 
own Master in a connection hitherto reserved for that of Jehovah” 
(Comm. on Rom., i. 1). 


The MS. readings of the Pauline introductions vary between "Ingots 
Χριστὸς and Χριστὸς ᾿Ιησοῦς. For a table of the variations see Sanday’s 
note on Rom. i. 1. 

From this it appears that IX is peculiar to the earlier group of intro- 
ductions, and X’I to the later; 1 and 2 Cor. and Rom. being doubtful. The 
change seems to point to the increasing use of Χριστὸς as a proper name 
instead of a title. Nevertheless, in the bodies of the Epistles both designa- 
tions occur; in Rom., Gal., Eph., Col., and the Pastorals, almost equally, 
while X’I predominates in 1 and 2 Cor. and Phil., and ἸΧ predominates 
decidedly only in the Thessalonian Epistles. 


πᾶσιν τοῖς ἁγίοις : It will be observed that the letter is addressed 
to all the individual Christians in Philippi, though the superin- 
tendents and ministers are named immediately after. See farther 
in Excursus on Bishops and Deacons. “Ayos, which is rare in 
classical Greek, in the LXX is the standard word for “holy.” 
Both the LXX and N.T. writers bring it out of the background in 
which it was left by classical writers. Its fundamental idea is 
setting apart. ‘Thus, in class., “ devoted to the gods.”’ Occasion- 
ally in a bad sense, “ devoted to destruction” ; “ accursed”’; but 
not in Biblical Greek. Jn O.T., “set apart to God,” as priests 
(Lev. xxi. 6, 7) ; the tithe of the land (Lev. xxvii. 30) ; the holy 
place in the house of God (τ K. viii. 10; comp. Heb. ix. 2) ; the 
most holy place (Ex. xxvi. 33 ; comp. Heb. ix. 3) ; the Israelites, 
as separated from other nations and consecrated to God (Ex. xix. 
6; Lev. xx. 26; Deut. vii. 6; Dan. vii. 22; 2 Esdras viii. 28). 
This idea is transferred to the N.T. and applied to Christians 
peta seg, 92,40 >: Rom, 1; ὙΠΟ vie 3,250) Petiit..@). 
Ideally ἅγιος implies personal holiness; moral purity. See Lev. 
Xi. 44, xix. 2; 1 Cor. vii. 34; 1 Pet.i, 16. Of John the Baptist 
(Mk. vi. 20) ; of Christ (Acts iii. 14); of God (1 Sam. vi. 20; 
Jn. xvii. 11; 1 Pet. i. 15) ; of God’s law (Rom. vii. 12) ; of the 
Spirit of God (Acts ii. 33, 38; Rom.v.5; etc.). Paul uses it 
here as a common designation of Christians belonging to the 
Philippian community. It does not imply actual holiness, but 
holiness as appropriate to those addressed and obligatory upon 
them, as persons set apart and consecrated. In this sense it 
does not occur in the Gospels (except, possibly, Mt. xxvii. 52) 
or in the Epistles of Pet. and John. It is rare in Acts. It 
appears in the opening salutations of all Paul’s letters to Churches 
except Gal. and 1 and 2 Thess. It is applied to Jewish Christians 
(4 Cor. xvi. 1,515); 2°Cor, viii; 4, ix. 1, ¥a'3 Rom: χῦ: 25» 20; 45), 
Chrys. remarks: “It was likely that the Jews too would call 


4 PHILIPPIANS [1.1,2 


themselves ‘saints’ from the first oracle, when they were called 
‘a holy and peculiar people’ (Ex. ix. 6; Deut. vii. 6). For this 
reason he added ‘that are in Christ Jesus.’ For these alone are 
holy, and those henceforward profane.”” Similarly Theoph. (See 
Delitzsch, Art. “ Heiligkeit Gottes” in Herz. ΑΔ. Enc.) 

ἐν Χριστῷ Ἰησοῦ: Connect with τοῖς ἁγίοις. This, and the 
kindred formulas ἐν Χριστῷ, ἐν Ἰησοῦ, ἐν Κυρίῳ, ἐν αὐτῷ, are com- 
mon Pauline expressions to denote the most intimate communion 
of the Christian with the living Christ. Ἔν Χριστῷ Ἰησοῦ occurs 
48 times, ἐν Χριστῷ 34, ἐν Κυρίῳ 50. These phrases are not found 
in the Synoptic Gospels, though their equivalent appears in John 
in the frequent ἐν éuoc. The conception is that of a sphere or 
environment or element in which a Christian lives, as a bird in the 
air, a fish in the water, or the roots of a tree in the soil. Christ 
glorified, Christ as πνεῦμα (2 Cor. ili. 17), is the normal life- 
element of the believer. He “puts on” Christ as a garment 
(Gal. iii. 27). In Christ alone he truly lives, and his powers 
attain their full range and efficiency. The order is invariably év 
Χριστῷ Ἰησοῦ. 

The formula is elaborately and ably discussed by G. A. Deissmann in his 
monograph Die neutestamentliche Formel ‘in Christo Jesu, Marburg, 1892. 
He carefully traces the use of ἐν with the personal singular through the 
Classics, the LXX and the N.T., and concludes that the phrase is original 
with Paul. His discussion as to whether a material conception is at the 
bottom of it, or whether it is a purely rhetorical mode of speech is not 
important. 


> 4 Ν ’ 
συν ἐπισκόποις καὶ διακόνοις : 


Β8 DK read συνεπισκοποις, “to the fellow-bishops.” So Chrys., Theoph. 


Render: ‘with the superintendents and ministers,’ and notice 
that the mention of these officials is appended to the more special 
salutation to the members of the Church. See Excursus at the 
end of this chapter. 

2. χάρις ὑμῖν καὶ εἰρήνη ἀπὸ Θεοῦ πατρὸς ἡμῶν καὶ κυρίου Ἰησοῦ 
Χριστοῦ: So in Rom., 1 and 2 Cor., Gal., and Eph. Col. omits 
καὶ κυρ. IX. 1 Thess. has χάρις ὑμῖν καὶ ἘΣΤΊΝ 2 Thess. omits 
ἡμῶν after πατρὸς. 1 and 2 Tim. add ἔλεος to χάρις and εἰρήνη 
and have Χτοῦ Ἰησοῦ τοῦ κυρίου ἡμῶν. Tit.: χάρις καὶ εἰρήνη ἀπὸ 
θεοῦ πατρὸς καὶ Χτοῦ Ἰησοῦ τοῦ σωτῆρος ἡμῶν. Notice the com- 
- bination of the Greek and Hebrew forms of salutation. Χάρις is 
primarily that which gives joy or pleasure (χαρά, χαίρειν). Its 
higher, Christian meaning is based on the emphasis of /veeness in 
a gift or favor. It is the free, spontaneous, absolute lovingkind- 
ness of God towards men. Hence it often stands in contrast with 
the ideas of debt, law, works, sin. Sometimes the cause is put for 
the effect ; so that it means the s/aée of grace into which God’s 
freely-bestowed favor brings Christians (Rom. v. 2; Gal. v. 4), 


I. 2, 3] THE PROLOGUE 5 


and consequently the capacity or ability due to that gracious state 
(Eph. iv. 7). It is this free favor of God, with all that follows it, 
that Paul in his salutation desires for his readers. Eipyvy is not 
tranquillity or repose, save as these are conceived as resulting from 
the cessation of hostility between God and man. Reconciliation 
is always at the basis of the Pauline conception of peace. Simi- 
larly Ps. xxix. 11, lxxxv. 8; Is. liii.5. These terms, therefore, 
are not to be regarded as mere equivalents of the ordinary forms 
of salutation. ‘They link themselves with these, and it is also true 
that Paul does not use them with any distinct dogmatic purpose ; 
but it is inconceivable that he should have employed them with- 
out some consciousness of the peculiar sense which attaches to 
them throughout his letters. Thus Weiss justly says that “the 
fact that these terms connect themselves with the ordinary Greek 
and Hebrew greetings does not exclude the employment of ‘ grace’ 
in its specifically Christian and Pauline sense in which it denotes 
the unmerited divine operation of love, which is the source and 
principle of all Christian salvation. Similarly, ‘peace’ is not to 
be understood primarily in the technical sense of Rom. v. 1, as 
the first-fruit of justification; but we may be sure that, in Paul’s 
mind, the whole state of tranquillity and general well-being which 
was implied in ‘ peace’ attached itself at the root to the fact of 
reconciliation with God.” 

The fact that God and Christ appear on an equality in the salu- 
tation cannot be adduced as a positive proof of the divine nature 
of Christ, though it falls in with Paul’s words in ch. ii., and may 
be allowed to point to that doctrine which he elsewhere asserts. 
We cannot be too careful to distinguish between ideas which 
unconsciously underlie particular expressions, and the same ideas 
used with a definite and conscious dogmatic purpose. This Epis- 
tle especially has suffered from the overlooking of this distinction. 


THE THANKSGIVING 
3. Εὐχαριστῶ τῷ θεῷ μου ἐπὶ πάσῃ τῇ μνείᾳ ὑμῶν, πάντοτε ἐν πάσῃ 
δεήσει μου, ὑπὲρ πάντων ὑμῶν μετὰ χαρᾶς τὴν δέησιν ποιούμενος : 


εὐχαριστω τω θεω μου αὶ ABDKLP, Vulg., Syr.u, Cop., Basm. 
eyw μεν εὐχαριστω Tw κυριω ἡμων D* FG. 


Render: ‘I thank my God in all my remembrance of you; 
always, in every supplication of mine, making my supplication for 
you all with joy.’ Thus πάντοτε ἐν πάσῃ δεήσει pov is attached to 
the following words, and ὑπὲρ πάντων ὑμῶν belongs, not to ἐν πάσῃ 
δεήσει μου, but to τὴν δέησιν ποιούμενος. 


This is the most natural and simple arrangement of the words (so Weiss, 
Kl, Lips., Weizs.) Lightf. makes a single clause of πάντοτε... ὑμῶν and 


6 PHILIPPIANS [I. 3-5 


attaches it to the foregoing words; and makes μετὰ χαρᾶς... ποιούμενος a 
separate explanatory clause defining the character of πάσῃ δεήσει. He 
joins πάντοτε with εὐχαριστῶ. E)lic. connects ὑπὲρ πάντων ὑμῶν with 
δεήσει μου, as Mey. 


Comp. 1: Thess..i. 2; Rom. i. 9, 10; Eph.i. 16; Coliog; 
Philem. 4. 

τῷ θεῷ μου: For pov with the sense of personal relationship, see 
Acts xxvii. 23; Rom. i. 8; Philem. 4. 

ἐπὶ πάσῃ τῇ μνείᾳ ὑμῶν : The local sense of ἐπὶ runs into the 
temporal, and blends with it (Jelf, Gr. 634, 2). Render ‘in,’ 
and comp. ii. 17. The sense is similar if not identical where ἐπὶ 
occurs with the genitive in 1 Thess. i. 2; Eph. i. 16; Philem. 4. 
But see Ellic. here. Not ‘upon every remembrance’ as A.V., 
which is precluded by the article with μνείᾳ, but ‘in all my 
remembrance’; my remembrance of you as a whole is mingled 
with thanksgiving. Μνεία is not ‘mention’ (as Kl.), a meaning 
which it has only when joined with ποιεῖσθαι, as Rom. i. 9; Eph. 
i. 16; τ Thess. i. 2. To make ὑμῶν the subjective genitive, ‘ your 
thought of me,’ with an allusion to their gift, is against usage, and 
would require a definite mention of the object of remembrance. 
Harnack, 7h. LZ., 1889, p. 419, wrongly renders ‘‘ for every mode 
of your remembrance,” adding “whereby, in the very beginning 
of the letter, the Philippians’ gift is thought of with tenderness.”’ 
The thought is quite unsuitable that Paul is moved to remem- 
brance only by the exhibition of their care for him. 

4. πάντοτε ἐν πάσῃ δεήσει : Πάσῃ δεήσει defines πάντοτε, as πάν- 
tore marks the occasions of εὐχαριστῶς On every occasion of his 
praying he makes request for them. Δέησις is petitionary prayer ; 
‘supplication.’ Paul alone joins it with προσευχὴ, which is the 
more general term for prayer. (See Phil. iv. 6; Eph. vi. 18; 
1 Tim. ii. 1.) Προσευχὴ is limited to prayer to God, while δέησις 
may be addressed to man. (See Trench, WV. 7. Syn. Ἰι; Schmidt, 
Synon. 7, 4; Ellic. on 1 Tim. ii. 2; Eph. vi. 18.) Ti δέήεων 
defines the more general πάσῃ δεήσει, and is in turn defined by 
ὑπὲρ πάντων ὑμῶν. 

μετὰ χαρᾶς : The petitions are accompanied with joy, the cause 
of which is indicated in vs. 5-7. 

5. ἐπὶ τῇ κοινωνίᾳ ὑμῶν : Connect with εὐχαριστῶ, not with τὴν 
δέησιν ποιούμενος. ἜοΥ, τ. εὐχαριστῶ would thus be left without an 
object. 2. The ‘fellowship’ is not the subject of Paul’s prayer, 
but of his thanksgiving. 3. Εὐχαριστεῖν and similar verbs are used 
by Paul with ἐπὶ, as 1 Cor. i. 4; 2 Cor. ix. 15; but ἐπὶ never 
occurs with δέησιν ποιούμενος OT δεῖσθαι to mark their cause or 
ground. Neither should ἐπὶ TH κοινωνίᾳ. be connected with pera 
xapas which would require τῆς before ἐπὶ. 

κοινωνίᾳ : “ Fellowship’ (κοινὸς, ‘common’). A relation between 
individuals which involves common and mutual interest and par- 


I. 5, 6] THE PROLOGUE 7 


ticipation in a common object. The word occurs often in Paul 
and in John’s epistles. Occasionally of the particular form which 
the spirit of fellowship assumes, as the giving of alms (Rom. xv. 26 ; 
Heb. xiii. 16), but always with an emphasis upon the principle 
of Christian fellowship which underlies the gift. Here it means 
sympathetic participation in labor and suffering. 

τῇ κοιν. ὑμῶν : ‘your fellowship.’ ‘Not fellowship with you’ 
(objective genitive) ; for when Paul uses the objective genitive 
with κοινωνία, it is to express fellowship with a divine and not a 
human person (1 Cor. i. 9; 2 Cor. xiii. 13; Phil. ii. 1). More- 
over, when κοινωνία is used of fellowship wth (una cum) human 
persons, the relation is indicated by pera (1 John i. 3, 7). Comp. 
πρὸς, 2 Cor. vi. 14. Hence ὑμῶν here is subjective. No defining 
word indicates their fellowship with him. The meaning is their 
fellowship with each other in the cause of the gospel. If the ref- 
erence had been particularly to their fellowship with Paul, per 
ἐμοῦ would probably have been added. 

eis τὸ εὐαγγέλιον : Describes the character and object of the fel- 
lowship. For κοινωνία with εἰς, see Rom. xv. 26; 2 Cor. ix. 13; 
and comp. ἐκοινώνησεν eis, Phil. iv. 15. The meaning is not ‘con- 
tribution,’ though the thought of their gifts may have been dis- 
tinctly present to the apostle’s mind (so Ellic. and Lightf.) ; nor 
‘participation’ in the gospel as sharers of its blessings ; but ‘ your 
close association in the furtherance of the gospel.’ 

ἀπὸ τῆς πρώτης ἡμέρας: 

WH. and Weiss retain τῆς with 8 ABP 37. Tisch. omits with DFGKL. 


‘The first day’ is the day when they received the gospel. (See 
Acts xvi. 13; Col. i.6.) Connect with τῇ κοινωνίᾳ ὑμῶν, not with 
πεποιθὼς. 

ἄχρι τοῦ νῦν : As Rom. vill. 22. Only in Paul. 


THE COMMENDATION AND PRAYER 


6. πεποιθὼς : ‘being confident.’ Appended to εὐχαριστῶ and 
parallel with ποιούμενος. 

αὐτὸ τοῦτο: Not governed by πεποιθὼς, but appended to it as 
specially marking the content and compass of the action (Ellic.). 
It prepares the way for the matter introduced by or. (Comp. 
Eph. vi. 22 ; Col. iv. 8.) Not ‘for this very reason’ (Mey.), z.e. 
by reason of your past cooperation, but referring to what follows. 

ὃ ἐναρξάμενος : ‘He’— God —is the source of Paul’s confidence, 
not only for himself, but for his converts ; God, whom he thanks 
in all his remembrance of them. For the omission of θεὸς, comp. 
Rom. viii τὰ ; Gal. i. 6, u. 8, 111. 5, νὰ 8; 1 Thess. v.: 24.) That 
ἐναρξάμενος contains a sacrificial metaphor, the beginning of the 
gospel-work among the Philippians being conceived as the inaugu- 


8 PHILIPPIANS [I. 6, 7 


ration of a sacrifice (Lightf.), is not probable. The word is used 
in that sense mostly in poetry, and the conception, in any case, is 
far-fetched. Lightf. compares ii. 17, but that can hardly be said 
to be in point. ἊἜνάρχεσθαι occurs three times in the N.T. 
(2 Cor. viii. 6 ; Gal. iii. 3), only in Paul, and always with ἐπιτελεῖν. 

ἐν ὑμῖν : ‘In you’; in your hearts. Not ‘among you.’ (Comp. 
11 Ἐν 

ἔργον ἀγαθὸν : Comp. ii. 132. The work begun in their reception 
of the gospel, and developed in their activity and close fellowship 
for its promotion. ‘The thought is taken up again in vs. 7. 

ἐπιτελέσει : ‘Complete,’ ‘consummate.’ For the thought, comp. 
1 Cor. i. 8; 1 Thess. v. 24; 2 Thess. iii. 3. The sense is preg- 
nant ; will carry it on toward completion, and finally complete. 

ἄχρι ἡμέρας ᾿Ιησοῦ Χριστοῦ : ‘ Day of Jesus Christ’ is the second 
coming or farousia of the Lord. The phrase is varied in Paul’s 

epistles : ἡ ἡμέρα, absolutely (i ὙΠ 655: ἡ 4G x Cor. lil. 13; Rom. 

xiii. 12); ἡ ἡμέρα ἐκείνη ( Thess. i. 10) ; ; ἡμέρα Χριστοῦ (Phil. 
i, 10, il. 16); ἡμέρα κυρίου or τοῦ ,κυρίου (1 Cor. v. 55 τ Tess 
v. 2; 2 Thess. il. 2) ; ἡμέρα τοῦ κυρίου ἡμῶν Ἰησοῦ (Χτοῦ) (1 Cor. 
i 8; 2 Cor. i. 14). It refers to a definite point of time when the 
Lord will appear, and Paul expects this appearance soon. At- 
tempts to evade this by referring his expressions to the day of 
death, or to the advance toward perfection after death until the 
final judgment, are forced and shaped by dogmatic preconceptions 
of the nature of inspiration. (See Jowett, “On the Belief of the 
Coming of Christ in the Apostolical Age,” in Zhe Epistles of St. 
Paul to the Thessalonians, etc.). 

7. καθώς ἐστιν δίκαιον ἐμοὶ τοῦτο φρονεῖν ὑπὲρ πάντων ὑμῶν: 
‘Even as it is right for me to be thus minded on behalf of you all.’ 

Καθώς is a nearer definition of πεποιθὼς, stating its ground in the 
affectionate relation between Paul and his readers. For a similar 
usage, see Gal. ili. 6. I am confident, even as it is right for me 
to have such confidence. Comp. also iii. 17; Rom. i. 28; 1 Cor. 
1,6; Eph. 1. 4. 

δίκαιον : in the general moral sense, as iv. 8; Acts iv. 19; Eph. 
vi. 1; Col. iv. 1; referring, as in classical usage, to the concep- 
tion of what is normal, yet having at its foundation, not the natural 
relation of man to man, but the moral relation of man to God. 
The classical construction of the clause would be δίκαιον ἐμὲ τοῦτο 
φρονεῖν, or δίκαιος cit τοῦτο pp. (See Win. lxvi.) 

φρονεῖν : ‘To be minded’; not as A.V., ‘to think.’ The word 
denotes rather a general disposition of the mind than a specific 
act of thought directed at a given point. Comp. iii. 15, 19, iv. 2 ; 
Rom. viii. 5, xi. 20; 1 Cor. xiii. 11; Gal. v. 10; Matt. xvi. 23; 
and see on iii. 15. Comp. also φρόνημα (Rom. viii. 6, 7,27). ΜΕΥ: 
defines ‘the ethical Christian quality.’ Similarly, in class. Greek, 
φρονεῖν often occurs with εὖ, καλῶς, ὀρθῶς, κακῶς : τά τινος doors 


I. 7] THE PROLOGUE 9 


is to be of one’s party or on his side. (See Schmidt, Synon. 147, 
7,8.) The reference of φρονεῖν here is to πεποιθὼς, not to the 
‘supplication’ (vs. 4), which the sense of φρονεῖν does not admit. 

ὑπὲρ παντῶν ὑμῶν : Ὑπὲρ is stronger than περὶ, ‘concerning.’ 
Const. with φρονεῖν, as iv. το. ‘All,’ collectively. The reference 
of this frequently recurring ‘all’ to Paul’s deprecation of divisions 
in the church is far-fetched. 

διὰ τὸ ἔχειν με ἐν τῇ καρδίᾳ ὑμᾶς : ‘ Because I have you in my 
heart.’ Not, ‘because you have me,’ which is forbidden by the 
position of the words, and by the following verse (Win. xliv.). 
It is right for me so to think, because I have a personal affection 
for you (comp. 2 Cor. vii. 3), as those who are my partakers in 
grace and my co-laborers in the work of the gospel. This is not 
to be understood as if Paul’s natural affection for his readers made 
it right for him to expect that the work begun in them would be 
completed, but the expectation was justified by his love for them 
in Christ. He knew no man after the flesh (2 Cor. v. 16) ; he 
loved them ‘in the heart of Jesus Christ’ (vs. 8), and the reason 
for his love was also the fundamental reason for his confidence in 
the completion of the work of God in them. 

ἔν τε τοῖς δεσμοῖς μου, etc.: Not to be taken with the preceding 
sentence, so as to read ‘I have you in my heart both in my bonds,’ 
etc. (so Mey., De W., Alf., Beet, Weizs.), but to be attached to 
the following συνκοινωνούς... ὄντας (so Lips., Lightf., Dw., Weiss, 
Ellic., Kl., Ead., WH., R.V.), ‘I have you in my heart as being 
(ὄντας) partakers with me in grace both in my bonds and in the 
defence,’ etc. The development of the thought as related to 
κοινωνία (vs. 4) and the repetition of ὑμᾶς, which is more easily 
accounted for if the new clause begins with ἔν re τοῖς δεσμοῖς, 
make this connection the more probable one. The apostle is con- 
fident because of his love for them in Christ, and he cherishes 
them in his heart because of the evidence furnished by them that 
in his sufferings and in the defence of the gospel they are united 
with him in the closest Christian fellowship. 

καὶ ἐν TH ἀπολογίᾳ καὶ βεβαιώσει τοῦ εὐαγγελίου : 


ev repeated before ry απολογια with Ν᾿ BD>©EKLP. Probably omitted 
(as in ADFG) because it was wanting before βεβαιωσει, the transcriber 
overlooking that βεβ. was included with doi. under one article. 


᾿Απολογία occurs in the sense of defence against a judicial ac- 
cusation (Acts xxv. 16; 2 Tim. iv. 16). As a defence against 
private persons (1 Cor. ix. 3; 2 Cor. vii. 11). In a loose sense, 
including both these (Phil. i. 16; 1 Pet. ili. 15). Here it may 
include Paul’s defence before the Roman authorities, but it must 
not be limited to that. It includes all. his efforts, wherever put 
forth, to defend the gospel. 

BeBaiwors occurs only here and Heb. vi. 16. It is closely allied 


10 PHILIPPIANS [1. 7,8 


but not synonymous with ἀπολογία, and does not form a hendiadys 
with it — ‘defence for confirmation.’ Notice the binding of the 
two words under the same article. The defence was made for 
establishment or confirmation, and resulted init. For the kindred 
verb βεβαιοῦν, see 1 Cor. i. 6, 8; 2 Cor. i. 21. 

συνκοινωνούς μου τῆς χάριτος : vvKowwvos occurs in the N.T. 
with both persons (1 Cor. ix. 23) and things (Rom. xi. 17). 
Render ‘ partakers with me of grace,’ not as A.V. ‘ partakers of 
my grace.’ Against this is the order of the pronouns, and the 
fact that when Paul speaks of the grace peculiar to himself he 
never sayS μοῦ ἡ χάρις OF ἡ χάρις pov, but ἡ χάρις ἡ δοθεῖσα μοι 
(Gal. ii. 9 ; 1 Cor. ili. τὸ ; Rom. xii. 3, xv. 15) ; Or ἡ χάρις αὐτοῦ 
ἡ εἰς ἐμὲ (1 Cor. xv. 10). Moreover, the grace is characterised 
by ‘in my bonds,’ etc. For a similar construction of a noun with 
a double genitive, of the person and of the thing, see i. 25, ii. 30. 
The article with χάριτος characterises the absolute grace of God in 
its peculiar applications to his trials and theirs, and in its manifes- 
tations in their sympathy and effort. Grace prompted them to 
alleviate his imprisonment, to cooperate with him in defending 
and propagating the gospel, and to suffer for its sake. 

8. μάρτυς γάρ μου ὃ θεός: 


The reading μοι for μου, Vulg. mhz, has little support. 


A strong adjuration thrown in as a spontaneous expression of 
feeling, like “God knows.” (Comp. Rom. i. 9; 2 Cor. i. 23; 
1 Thess. ii. 5, 10.) Chrys. says it is an expression of his inability 
to express his feeling, ‘I cannot express how I long.’ Similarly, 
Aretius, ‘‘ No necessity compels him to this appeal, yet the great- 
ness of his love does not satisfy itself without betaking itself to 
God’s tribunal.” 


Some of the earlier interpreters explained the words as an attestation of 
Paul’s love made with a view of heightening that of his readers; as a 
formal oath in verification of his teaching; as a protection against slander- 
ers and against suspicion. Klépper thinks that they were aimed at certain 
persons in the church who were not in full sympathy with him and did not 
wholly trust his assurances. All these explanations are forced. The gen- 
eral statement, ‘I have you in my heart,’ is carried out by the stronger 
expression. 


ὡς ἐπιποθῶ πάντας ὑμᾶς ἐν σπλάγχνοις Χριστοῦ Ἰησοῦ : 

ὡς : ‘how,’ as Rom. 1. 9; 1 Thess. ii. το. Not ‘that.’ (See 
Thay. Lex. sub voce, i. 6.) 

ἐπιποθῶ : Mostly in Paul. The only exceptions are Jas. iv. 5 ; 
1 Pet. ii. 2, "Emi denotes the direction, not the intensity of the 
emotion, as Lightf. and ΚΙ. 

σπλάγχνοις : Σπλάγχνα are the nobler entrails — the heart, liver, 
and lungs, as distinguished from the intestines (ra ἔντερα), and 
regarded collectively as the seat of the feelings, the affections and 


I. 8, 9] THE PROLOGUE II 


passions, especially anxiety and anger. ‘ Heart’ is used similarly 
by us. A like usage appears in Hebrew, though the nobler organs 
are not selected for the metaphorical usage. Thus D'y1, ‘ bowels,’ 
‘womb,’ ‘stomach,’ and 37), ‘ bowels,’ ‘ belly,’ ‘womb,’ are both 
used for the heart as the seat of feeling. The plural of om, ‘the 
womb,’ ΘΠ, is rendered in the LXX by οἰκτιρμοί, Ps. xxv. (xxiv.) 
6, xl. (xxxix.) 12 ; by ἔλεος, Is. xlvii. 6 ; by σπλάγχνα, Prov. xii. 10. 
The word occurs occasionally in the singular, σπλάγχνον, in the 
tragedians. (See Atsch. Hum. 240; Soph. 47. 995; Eur. Orest. 
D200, 2/1ppol. 118.) For N.T. usage, see ii. 1; 2: Cor. vi. 12, 
mies 3 Col. ui, 12‘; Philem. 7, 12, 20. 

Χριστοῦ Ἰησοῦ : Paul’s feeling is not his mere natural affection, 
but an affection so informed with Christ that it is practically 
Christ’s own love. Christ loves them in him. Thus Beng., “In 
Paulo non Paulus vivit sed Jesus Christus; quare Paulus non ἴῃ 
Pauli, sed Jesu Christi movetur visceribus.”’ 

9. καὶ τοῦτο προσεύχομαι : With reference to δέησιν in vs. 4. 

Kai not connecting τοῦτο προσ. with ἐπιποθῶ, so as to read ‘ how 
I long and how I pray’ (so Ril.). This would weaken, if not 
destroy the force of vs. 8. A new topic is introduced by καὶ. 

Tovro points to what follows, calling attention to the subject of 
the prayer. ‘This which follows is what I pray.’ 

iva ἡ ἀγάπη ὑμῶν ἔτι μᾶλλον καὶ μᾶλλον περισσεύῃ : ‘That your 
love may abound yet more and more.’ 

Ἵνα marks the purport of the prayer. For zpocevy. iva, see 
1 (οΥ. xiv, 13. 


There is abundant evidence that ἵνα has, in many cases, lost its telic 
sense and has come to express result or purport. See, for example, 
I Thess. v. 4; 1 Cor. vii. 29, and the sensible remarks of Canon Evans 
on the latter passage in the Sfeaker’s Com. The examples are drawn out 
and classified by Burton, Syntax of the Moods and Tenses of N. T. Greek, 
191-223. See also Simcox, Language of the N.T., p. 176 ff. 


ἡ ἀγάπη ὑμῶν : Your mutual love ; not your love for me, save as 
I am one of the common brotherhood. 

ἔτι μᾶλλον καὶ μᾶλλον περισσεύῃ : Comp. 1 Thess. iv. 9, 10. 
Notice the accumulation of comparative phrases so common with 
Paul, as vs. 23; 2 Cor. iv. 17; Eph. iii. 20. 


For περισσευη, BD 37 read περισσευση; so Weiss, and WH. marg. K* P 
περισσενει. FG περισσευοι. 


Love, like other Christian graces, grows. (Comp. iii. 12.) Νο- 
tice the progressive present, ‘may continue to abound.’ Chrys. 
remarks: “ For this is a good of which there is no satiety.” 

ἐν ἐπιγνώσει καὶ πάσῃ αἰσθήσει: ‘in knowledge and in all dis- 
cernment.’ ᾿ἊἜἘπίγνωσις and the kindred verb ἐπιγινώσκειν are 
favorite words with Paul. “Emi has the force of addition; know- 


12 PHILIPPIANS [1. 9, 10 


ledge superadded ; advanced knowledge, rather than (as Thay. 
and Kl.) direction toward; application to that which is known. 
(See Sanday on Rom. i. 28, and Evans on τ Cor. xiii. 12.) Thus 
it signifies here developed knowledge of truth, with more especial 
reference to the practical knowledge which informs Christian love 
as to the right circumstances, aims, ways, and means. (See Col. 
i.g, 10.) The difference between the simple and the compound 
word is illustrated in 1 Cor. xiii. 12; Rom. i. 21, 28. Ἐπίγνωσις 
is always applied in the N.T. to the knowledge of things ethical 
and divine. In all the four epistles of the captivity it is one of 
the subjects of the apostle’s opening prayer for his readers. It 
is constructed mostly with a genitive of the object, as ἁμαρτίας, 
ἀληθείας, and occurs absolutely only in Rom. x. 2. 

αἰσθήσει : Only here in N.T. Comp. αἰσθητήρια (Heb. v. 14). 
In LXX, Prov.'1.4, 7,22, 11. 20. ¥. 25 Sit. xxil. 10 ; 18: νυ τ 
Primarily of sensuous, but also of spiritual perception. It is the 
faculty of spiritual discernment of the bearings of each particular 
circumstance or case which may emerge in experience. It is more 
specific than ἐπίγνωσις with the practical applications of which it 
deals. Πάσῃ is added because this discernment operates in mani- 
fold ways, according to the various relations of the subject to the 
facts of experience. Ἔν, which belongs to both nouns, follows the 
standing usage, περισσεύειν ἐν. (See Rom. xv. 13; 2 Cor. iii. 9, 
viii. 7.) Paul prays for the abounding of love in these two aspects, 
advanced knowledge and right spiritual discernment; an intelli- 
gent and discriminating love; love which, however ardent and 
sincere, shall not be a mere unregulated impulse. Even natural 
love has a quick perception, an intuitive knowledge ; but without 
the regulative principle of the spiritual reason, it is not secure 
against partial seeing and misconception, and results which do not 
answer to the purity of its motives. ᾿Ἐπίγνωσις is the general 
regulator and guide. Αἴσθησις applies ἐπίγνωσις to the finer de- 
tails of the individual life, and fulfils itself in the various phases of 
Christian tact. 

10. εἰς τὸ δοκιμάζειν ὑμᾶς τὰ διαφέροντα : ‘That you may put to 
the proof the things that differ.’ 

Eis governing the infin. with τὸ is frequent in Paul. (See Rom. 
1. 11, 1]. 26, vii 29 3 Eph. 1. 12.) 

Δοκιμάζειν in class. Gk. of assaying metals. (Comp. LXX, Prov. 
Vili, 10, xvii..3 3 Sir. i. 55 also τ Cor... 43 51) Pet. 1. 7) Τὴ 
class. the technical word for testing money (Plato, Zim. 65, c.). 
Δοκιμάζειν and πυροῦσθαι occur together (Jer. ix. 7; Ps. xii. (xi.) 6, 
Ixvi. (Ixv.) το). Generally, ‘to prove,’ ‘examine,’ as 1 Cor. xi. 
28; Gal. vi. 4; 1 Thess. v.21. ‘To accept’ that which is proved 
to be good. This and the more general sense appear together in 
1/Cor, xvi. 332) Cor: vili, 22); 1 Thess, it, 4, 

τὰ διαφέροντα : Διαφέρειν, in class. and N.T., means both ‘to 


I. 10] THE PROLOGUE 13 


excel” (Matt. vi. 26, x. 31, ΧΙ 12; Luke xii. -7, 24), and ‘to 
differ’ (1 Cor. xv. 41; Gal. iv. 1, ii. 6). 

Expositors are divided between two renderings. 1. ‘To put 
to the proof the things that differ,’ and so discriminate between 
them (so Alf., Ead., Lips., Kl., De W., Weiss, Hack.). 2. ‘To 
approve the things that are excellent’ (so Ellic., Mey., Beet, 
Lightf., Vulg., R.V., but with 1 in marg.). The difference is not 
really essential, since, in any case, the result contemplated is the 
approval of what is good. But 1 agrees better with what pre- 
cedes, especially with αἴσθησις. Paul is emphasising the necessity 
of wisdom and discrimination in love. ‘This necessity arises from 
circumstances which present moral problems, and develop differ- 
ences of view, and give room for casuistry. The discrimination 
of love applies tests, and makes distinctions impossible to the 
untrained moral sense. ‘Therefore the Romans are urged to be 
‘transformed by the renewing of their mind,’ in order that they 
may prove (δοκιμάζειν) the good and acceptable and perfect will 
of God (Rom. xii. 2). Paul illustrates this discrimination in the 
matter of eating meat offered to idols (1 Cor. viil., x. 19-33). 
In that case love abounds, not only in knowledge, but in percep- 
tion of a delicate distinction between an act which is right in 
itself, and wrong in the light of the obligation to the weak con- 
science. The αἴσθησις of love is the only sure guide in questions 
which turn upon things morally indifferent. Thus the whole 
thought is as follows : ‘ May your love increase and abound in ripe 
knowledge and perceptive power, that you may apply the right 
tests and reach the right decisions in things which present moral 
differences.” (Comp. Eph. v. 10; 1 Thess. v. 21; Heb. v. 14.) 


The majority of the Greek fathers explained the differences as those 
between believers and unbelievers, heretics or errorists, or between true 
and false doctrine; many of the moderns of the difference between right 
and wrong. (See Klépper on this pass.) 


ἵνα ἦτε εἰλικρινεῖς Kal ἀπρόσκοποι : 

There is good ancient authority for εἰλικ., both with and without 
the aspirate. (See WH. WV. 7. Append. sub ‘breathings.’) The 
word only here and 2 Pet. ili. 1. The kindred noun εἰλικρίνεια in 
1 Cor.v.8; 2 Cor.i. 12, ii. 17. The meaning is ‘ pure,’ ‘sincere.’ 


None of the etymologies are satisfactory. The usual one is εἵλη, ‘ tested 
by the sunlight,’ but εἵλη means the ea? of the sun. 

Lightf. suggests a probable(?) derivation from εἴλη, ‘a troop’; others, 
from εἴλω or ἔλλω, ‘to turn round,’ — hence ‘judged by turning round,’ or 
‘sifted by revolution.’ 


ἀπρόσκοποι: Either (1) ‘not causing others to stumble’ (Lips., 
Mey., Ead.), or (2) ‘not stumbling’ (Alf., Ellic., Kl., Weiss, 
Lightf.). For 1, see τ Cor. x. 32; and comp. Rom. xiv. 13; 
2 Cor. vi. 3; for 2, Acts xxiv. 16. The former meaning is clearly 


I 


14 PHILIPPIANS [1. 10, 11 


preferable, as related to what precedes. The discernment of love 
is especially demanded in adjusting a Christian’s true relations to 
his brethren. Lightf.’s reason for adopting 2 is that the question 
is solely that of the fitness of the Philippians to appear before the 
tribunal of Christ, and that therefore any reference to their influ- 
ence upon others would be out of place. How influence upon 
others can be left out of the question of such fitness, it is not easy 
to see. Certainly, if we are to believe Christ himself, the awards 
of the day of -hrist will be determined quite as much by the 
individual’s relztions to his fellow-men as by his personal right- 
eousness, if the two can be separated, as they cannot be. Christ’s 
thought on that point is unmistakably expressed in Matt. xxv. 40; 
and Paul furnishes his own interpretation of ἀπρόσκοποι in Rom. 
xiv. 13; 1 Cor. x. 32; 2 Cor. vi. 3; and especially 1 Cor. viii. 13. 
εἰς ἡμέραν Χριστοῦ: 

eis, not ‘till,’ as A.V., but ‘ for,’ ‘ against,’ as those who are pre- 
paring for it. For this sense of eis, comp. 11. 16; Eph. iv. 30; 
@ Tim. 1.12. 

11. πεπληρωμένοι καρπὸν δικαιοσύνης : ‘ being filled with the fruit 
of righteousness.’ Πεπλ. agrees with the subject of ἦτε in vs. 10, 
and defines εἰλικρινεῖς and ἀπρόσκοποι more fully. Kapzov is the 
accus. of the remote object, as Col. i. 9g; 2 Thess. i. 11. (Comp. 
LXX, Ex. xxxi. 3.) Paul elsewhere uses πληροῦν with the genit. 
or dat. (See Rom. i. 29, xv. 13, 143; 2 Cor. vil. 4.) 


The reading of TR kaprwv... τῶν is feebly supported. 


Καρπὸς in its moral and religious sense occurs in vs. 22, iv. 17; 
Rom. i. 13, vi. 21, 22, xv. 28; Gal. v. 22, nearly always of a good 
result. The phrase ‘fruit of righteousness’ is from the O.T. (See 
Prov. xi. 30; Amos vi. 13. Comp. Jas. ili. 18.) The genit. 
δικαιοσύνης is not appositional, ‘fruit which consists in righteous- 
ness,’ but, as Gal. v. 22; Eph. ν. ο ; Jas. 111. 18, ‘the fruit which 
righteousness produces.’ 

Δικαιοσύνη, not in Paul’s more technical sense of ‘ righteousness 
by faith,’ but moral rightness; righteousness of life; though, as 
Mey. justly observes, it is a moral condition which is the moral 
consequence, because the necessary vital expression of the 
righteousness of faith, (Comp. Rom. vii. 4; Col. i. 10.) “The 
technical and the moral conceptions of righteousness may be 
dogmatically distinguished, but not in fact, since the latter cannot 
exist without the former’’ (Weiss). This appears from the next 
clause — τὸν διὰ Ἰησοῦ Χριστοῦ. Notice the defining force of τὸν. 

Righteousness without Christ cannot be fruitful (Jn. xv. 5, 8, 16). 

εἰς δόξαν καὶ ἔπαινον θεοῦ : Construe with the whole preceding 
sentence, and not with καρπὸν only. 

Δόξα is not used in N.T. in the classical sense of ‘notion’ or 
‘opinion.’ In the sense of ‘reputation’ (Jn. xii. 43; Rom. il. 7, _ 


’ 


& 


I. 11, 12] CAPTIVITY FURTHERS THE GOSPEL 15 


10). As ‘brightness’ or ‘splendor’ (Acts xxil. 11 ; Rom. ix. 4; 
1 Cor. xv. 40). ‘The glory of God’ expresses the sum total of 
the divine perfections. It is prominent in the redemptive revela- 
tion (Is. lx. 1; Rom. v. 2,vi.4). It expresses the form in which 
God reveals himself in the economy of salvation (Rom. ix. 23 ; 
Eph. i. 12; 1 Tim.i.11). It is the means by which the redemp- 
tive work is carried on; in calling (2 Pet. 1, 3) ; in raising up 
Christ and believers with him (Rom. vi. 4) ; in wsparting strength 
to believers (Eph. iii. 16; Col. i. 11). It is the joal of Christian 
hope (Rom. v. 2, viii. 18, 21... Titi aa )ye ΠΕ δ “the redemptive 
aspect of the phrase which gives the key to its meaning here. 
The love of God’s children, abounding in discriminating knowl- / 
edge, their being filled with the fruit of righteousness, redounds/ 
to (eis) his glory as a redeeming God. It honors him in respect 
of that which is preéminently his glory. Every holy character is 
a testimony to the divine character and efficiency of the work of 
redemption. 

ἔπαινον : The homage rendered to God as a God of ‘glory.’ 
(See Eph. i. 6, 12, 1451 Pet.i. 7.) 


The apostle now enters upon the subject-matter of the letter. 
From ys. 12 to vs. 26 he treats of — 


1. The state of the gospel in Rome. 
(az) Its advancement through his imprisonment (12-14). 
(ὁ) The different kinds of preachers (15-17). 


2. His own condition and hopes (18-26). 


12-14. Though you may have feared that the cause of the gospel 
ts suffering by reason of my imprisonment, I wish to assure you 
that it has rather been promoted thereby. My imprisonment has 
become known as being for Christ's sake, not only to the whole 
band of the pretorian troops, but also to the rest of Rome; and 
the majority of the Christian brethren have had their faith in God 
strengthened by my example, and their boldness in preaching the 
gospel increased. 


12. γινώσκειν δὲ ὑμᾶς βούλομαι : ‘now I would have you know.’ 
This phrase does not occur elsewhere in N.T., but Paul uses 
several similar expressions in order to call special attention to 
what he is about to say. Thus, θέλω δὲ ὑμᾶς εἰδέναι (1 Cor. xi. 3 ; 
Col. ii. 1) ; οὐ θέλω (ομεν) ὑμᾶς ἀγνοεῖν (1 Cor: χ. αι; Rom: 1. 13; 
1 Thess. iv. 13) ; γνωρίζω (ομεν) ὑμῖν (1 Cor. χν. τ ; 2 Cor. viii. 1 ; 
Gal. i. 11). 

τὰ κατ᾽ ἐμὲ : ‘The things pertaining to me’; my experience asa 


16 PHILIPPIANS [1. 12, 13 


prisoner. (Comp. Eph. vi. 21; Col. iv. 7.) Not ‘that which has 
been undertaken against me,’ which would require ἐμοῦ. 

μᾶλλον: Not ‘more’ (quantitatively), but ‘rather.’ Though 
you feared that my circumstances might injure the cause of the 
gospel, they have vazher promoted it. ‘The comparative is often 
used without mention of the standard of comparison. (See ii. 28 ; 
Rom. xv. 15 ; 1 Cor. vii, 38, xii. 31 ; 2 Cor. vil.’ 7, 1.2. eterna 
XXXV. 4.) 

προκοπὴν : Only here, vs. 25, and 1 Tim. iv. 15. A word of 
later Greek, occurring in Plut., Jos., and Philo. (See Wetst.) In 
LXX, see Sir. li. 17; 2 Macc. viii. 8. The figure in the word is 
uncertain, but is supposed to be that of pioneers cu¢éing a way 
before an army, and so furthering its march. ‘The opposite is 
expressed by ἐγκόπτειν, ‘to cut into,’ ‘to throw obstacles in the 
way of,’ and so ‘ to hinder’ (Gal. v. 7 ; 1 Thess. ii. 18 ; 1 Pet. iii. 7). 

εὐαγγελίου : Originally ‘a present given in return for good news.’ 
(See Hom. Od. xiv. 152; Aristoph. Awigh/s, 647; 2 Sam. iv. 10, 
xviii. 22.) In class. Gk. it meant, in the plu., ‘a sacrifice for good 
tidings’ ; hence the phrase εὐαγγελία θύειν (Aristoph. Knights, 656 ; 
Xen. Hell. i. 6, 37, iv. 3, 14). Later, ‘the good news’ itself, as 
2 Sam. xviii. 20, 25, 27; 2 Kings viil.9. Hence ‘the joyful tid- 
ings of Messiah’s kingdom —the gospel.’ In the N.T., never in 
the sense of a book. 

cis . . . ἐλήλυθεν : Not elsewhere in Paul. (See Sap. xv. 5.) 
‘Has redounded to’ ; “ fallen out unto.’ 

13. ὥστε τοὺς δεσμούς μου φανεροὺς ἐν Χριστῷ: 

Ὥστε with the accus. w. inf., as 1 Cor. 1, 7. With an explana- 
tory force, the explanation being regarded as a result of the notion 
of προκοπὴν. (See Jelf, Gram. 863, obs. 7.) Render: ‘so that 
my bonds became manifest in Christ’; not ‘my bonds in Christ,’ 
against which is the position of the words. Moreover, the force 
of the statement lies in the fact that his imprisonment has become 
a matter of notoriety as being for Christ. His confinement as a 
Christian would excite attention and inquiry. (Comp. Ign. Smyr. 
xi. δεδεμένος θεοπρεπεστάτοις δεσμοῖς πάντας ἀσπάζομαι : “A pris- 
oner in bonds which are divine ornaments, I salute all men.”) 
Jerome says: “ Vincula mea manifesta fierent in Christo. Non 
solum non obsunt sed etiam profuerunt, dum manifestatur me non 
pro aliquo crimine, sed pro Christo omnia sustinere.” 

ἐν ὅλῳ τῷ πραιτωρίῳ : 

‘In (or throughout) the whole preetorian guard.’ The pre- 
torians formed the imperial guard. ‘They were ten thousand in 
number, picked men, originally of Italian birth, but drawn later 
from Macedonia, Noricum, and Spain. ‘They were originally 
instituted by Augustus, who stationed three of their cohorts in 
Rome, and dispersed the others in the adjacent towns. ‘Tiberius 
concentrated them all at Rome in a permanent and strongly forti- 


I. 13, 14] THE ROMAN BRETHREN TAKE HEART 17 


fied camp. Vitellius increased their number to sixteen thousand. 
They were distinguished by special privileges and by double pay. 
Their original term of service was twelve years, afterwards in- 
creased to sixteen. On retiring, each soldier received a bounty 
amounting to nearly nine hundred dollars. Paul was committed 
to the charge of these troops, the soldiers relieving each other in 
mounting guard over him in his private lodging. (See note at 
the end of this chapter.) 

καὶ τοῖς λοιποῖς πᾶσιν : (Comp. 2 Cor. xiii. 2.) ‘All the rest,’ 
as distinguished from the preetorians. Not as A.V., ‘in all other 
places’ (so Chrys., Thdrt., Calv.). His imprisonment as a Christ- 
ian became known beyond the limits of the guard, in the city at 
large. Immediately upon his arrival he addressed the chief of the 
Jews (Acts xxviii. 17), and later a larger number (vs. 23), and 
for two years received all that came to him (vs. 30). 

14. καὶ τοὺς πλείονας τῶν ἀδελφῶν ἐν κυρίῳ πεποιθότας τοῖς δεσμοῖς 
μου: ‘And the majority of the brethren having confidence in the 
Lord by reason of my bonds.’ 

τοὺς πλείονας : Not as A.V. ‘many,’ but ‘the greater number.’ 
(Comp. 1 Cor. x. 5.) 

Differences as to the connection of the words. 1. ἐν κυρίῳ: 
(2) with ἀδελφῶν, ‘ brethren in the Lord’ (Alf., K1., Dw., Weiss., 
De W., Weizs. [Trans.]) ; (ὁ) with πεποιθότας τοῖς δεσμοῖς, ‘ rely- 
ing on my bonds in the Lord.’ According to this, ἐν κυρίῳ is the 
modal definition of wer. τ. δεσμ. The ground of confidence is 
τοῖς δεσμ., not ἐν κυρ., which marks the nature and sphere of the 
confidence (so Mey., Lightf., Ellic., Lips., Ead.). 2. πεποιθότας : 
(4) with rots δεσμοῖς, as that in which confidence is reposed 
(Mey., Kl., Ead., Lightf., Alf., Lips.) ; (4) with ἐν κυρίῳ, as the 
ground of confidence (Beet, Hack.). 

As to 1 (a), ἀδελφοὶ ἐν κυρίῳ does not occur elsewhere. None 
of the passages cited by ΚΙ. and others, such as 1 Cor. iv. 17; 
Col. iv. 7; Philem. 16, are in point, since in none of them does 
the preposition depend directly on ἀδελφὸς. Moreover, the addi- 
tion of ἐν x. would seem superfluous. 1 (4) is grammatically 
defensible. (See Gal. v. 10; 2 Thess. iii. 4.) But the sense is 
forced, if it can be called sense. What is meant by ‘having con- 
fidence in,’ or ‘ trusting in my bonds’? 2 (4) is a legitimate con- 
struction. (See Jer. xxxi. 7, LXX, Aug. Bib. xlviii. 7; Phil. ii. 
24; and the analogous constructions, Phil. iii. 3, 4.) It is true 
that in such cases πεποιθ. usually precedes; but the change of 
position is for the sake of emphasis, as Phil. iii. 3. Ἔν κυρίῳ is 
the ground of πεποιθ., and τοῖς δεσμ. is instrumental. The sense 
is thus simple and consistent. By Paul’s bonds the brethren have 
had their confidence in the Lord strengthened. He has already 
said that his bonds have become manifest in Christ. The testi- 
mony borne by his imprisonment has been distinctly that of 

c 


18 PHILIPPIANS [1. 14, 15 


Christ’s prisoner, and has therefore encouraged confidence in 
Christ. 

περισσοτέρως τολμᾷν ἀφόβως τὸν λόγον Tod θεοῦ λαλεῖν : ‘are 
more abundantly bold to speak the word of God without fear.’ 
For περισσοτέρως, comp. 2 Cor. i. 12, ii. 43 Gal.i.14. It belongs 
with τολμᾷν, not with ἀφόβως. 

Τολμᾷν is to carry into action the feeling of resolute confidence 
expressed by θαρσεῖν. (See 2 Cor. x. 2, and W. Sz. ad loc.) 

τὸν λόγον Tov θεοῦ: The message of God; the gospel. Very 
frequent in N.T. Once in the sense of ‘the declared purpose of 
God’ (Rom. ix. 6). Not elsewhere in Paul with λαλεῖν. For the 
phrase τὸν Ady. λαλ. Or τὸν Ady. He. AaA., see Acts iv. 31, ΧΙ. 46, 
Xiv. 25. 


Paul’s boldness and patience in his captivity have stirred up the 
courage and zeal of the Roman Christians, and probably have 
awakened shame in some recreant disciples. Chrys. remarks that 
their courage had not failed before, but had grown by the apostle’s 
bonds. 


15-17. But all those who preach Christ are not actuated by 
equally pure motives. While some are moved by love and by sym- 
pathy with meas a defender of the gospel, others, in a spirit of 
envy, contention, and partisanship, proclaim Christ tnsincerely, 
seeking to add to the affliction of my captivity. 


15. τινὲς μὲν καὶ διὰ φθόνον καὶ ἔριν : ‘some indeed preach 
Christ even of envy and strife.’ These words are independent of 
the preceding clause, and introduce a new feature of the condi- 
tion of the gospel in Rome. ‘The words τὸν Ady. τ. He. AaA. Open 
to the apostle the general subject of the preaching of the gospel 
in the metropolis. Much wearisome discussion has arisen on the 
question whether Paul includes those who preach Christ of envy 
and strife in the πλείονας of vs. 14, or treats them as a distinct 
class. It seems apparent on its face that the motives of envy and 
strife which attach to the τινὲς μὲν cannot be reconciled with the 
ἐν κυρίῳ πεποιθ., nor with the sympathetic consciousness that Paul 
is set for the defence of the gospel. (See Weiss’ novel effort to 
reconcile these.) Moreover, the καὶ has its familiar contrasting 
force, and introduces another and a different class, and not the 
same class with the addition of a subordinate and baser motive. 
Thus the τινὲς μὲν are set over against the πλείονας. 

But who are meant by these τινὲς μὲν ῥ᾽ Some of the Fathers, as 
Chrys., Gic., Theoph., explained of unbelievers who proclaimed 
Christianity in order to awaken the hatred of Paul’s enemies ; 
others, as Grot., of Jews, who brought the gospel and its evi- 


I. 15] THE ENVIOUS PREACHERS 19 


dences into controversy in order to injure or refute it. Since 
Beng. the view has prevailed that they were Judaising Christians 
(so Lightf., Lips., Dw., Mey., Beet, Ellic., Lum., Nedr., Weizs.). 
But this view does not seem reconcilable with Paul’s words con- 
cerning the Judaisers in this very epistle (iil. 2), and in the Gala- 
tian and Second Corinthian letters. Nowhere in his epistles does 
Paul speak of the Judaisers as preachers of Christ unless it be 
“another Jesus’’ (2 Cor. xi. 4). Although they accepted Jesus 
as the Messiah, in their preaching he was thrown into the back- 
ground behind the claims of the law. Paul found worse enemies 
among these Christians than among the heathen; yet here he 
virtually sanctions their preaching, and rejoices in it. To say 
that they are shown to have been Judaising Christians because 
they preached Christ of envy and strife, is to argue in a circle. 
The attempt to solve the difficulty by assuming that the form of 
Judaistic opposition was milder in Rome than in the East (Mey., 
Dw., Pfl. Paulinismus, pp. 42, 332) seems like a desperate resource. 
To say that a conciliation of the Jewish-Christian element in Rome 
is implied in Paul’s recognition of the value of the old covenant 
relation (Rom. 111. 1 f., ix. 4, x. 2); in his charity towards a nar- 
row conscientiousness (xiv. 3-23) ; in his expressions of love and 
sympathy for his own race (ix. 1-3, x. 1, xi. 1, 13) ; and in his 
warning of the Gentiles against self-elation (xi. 17-24) —is a 
piece of special pleading. Paul shows equal respect for narrow 
conscientiousness in 1 Cor., and he never fails to treat the law 
and the covenants with respect ; while his love and sympathy for 
his own race appear everywhere. Weiss (Zin/. ἡ. d. WV. T. § 26) 
remarks on this passage: “This is generally supposed to refer to 
Judaistic teachers in Rome, whose appearance is made an argu- 
ment for the still strongly Jewish-Christian character of the Roman 
church. But the way in which Paul unreservedly gives expression 
to his joy respecting this accession of preaching, makes it quite 
inconceivable that these personal opponents should have preached 
a gospel in any way differing from that which he preached.” 

While therefore the τινὲς μὲν, etc., may include individual Juda- 
isers, they are not to be limited to these. I incline rather to 
regard them as Pauline Christians who were personally jealous of 
the apostle, and who sought to undermine his influence. It may 
be, as Weiss suggests, that as the Roman church before Paul’s 
arrival had no definite leadership, it was easy for ambitious and 
smaller men to obtain a certain prominence which they found 
menaced by the presence and influence of the apostle. Comp. 
the state of things in the Corinthian church (1 Cor. iii. 3, 4). 

διὰ φθόνον καὶ ἔριν : Directed at Paul personally. Διὰ, ‘on 
account of,’ marking the motive. (Comp. Mt. xxvii. 18; Eph. 
ii. 4; Rom. xiii. 5.) 

εὐδοκίαν : A purely Biblical word. As related to one’s self, it 


20 PHILIPPIANS [I. 15, 16 


means ‘ contentment,’ ‘satisfaction’ (Sir. xxix. 23; 2 Thess. i. 11; 
on which, see Bornemann, Comm. ad loc.). As related to others, 
it means ‘ good-will,’ ‘benevolence.’ Of God’s good-will to men 
(Lk. x. 21; Eph. i. 5, 9; Phil. ii. 13). The meaning ‘desire’ 
(so Lightf. for Sir. xi. 7, and Rom. x. 1 [see comm. on this pass. ], 
and Thay. Zex. for Rom. x. 1) cannot be supported. (See Sanday 
on Rom. x. 1.) For εὐδοκεῖν, see 1 Cor. x. 5; 2 Cor. xii. 10; 
1 Thess. ii. 12. Here ‘ good-will’ towards Paul and the cause of 
the gospel. 

τὸν Χριστὸν κηρύσσουσιν: 

Κηρύσσειν, orig. ‘to perform the duty of a herald’ (κήρυξ), is 
the standard N.T. word for the proclamation of the gospel. Not 
often in any other sense. Of the preaching of John the Baptist 
(Mt. iii. 1; Mk. i. 4; Acts x. 37) ; of preaching the claims of the 
Mosaic law (Acts xv. 21; Gal. v. 11). Chiefly, perhaps wholly, 
confined to the primary announcement of the gospel, and not 
including continuous instruction or teaching of believers, which is 
expressed by διδάσκειν. (See both in Mt. iv. 23, ix. 35, xi. 1.) 
Yet in passages like 1 Cor. i. 23, ix. 27, xv. 11, the distinction 
between missionary and church preaching cannot be clearly in- 
ferred. For the phrase κηρύσσειν Xrov or tiv Χτὸν, Xrov ᾿Ιησοῦν, 
"I. Xrov, sée‘Acts viii. 5 ; 1 Cor. 1. 23, xv. 12; 2 Cor. i. τὸ, ἂν. 5. 


τον before xTov omitted by x°* BFG. 


16. The TR reverses the order of vs. τό, 17 (so D’* KL., Syr.?, 
and several Fathers). The change seems to have been made in 
order to conform to the order of the parties in vs.15. The words 
in the correct order of our text exhibit a cross-reference (chias- 
mus), the first specification of vs. 16 referring to the second of 
vs. 15. Render: ‘They that are of love (preach Christ) because 
they know that I am set for the defence of the gospel; and they 
that are of faction (preach Christ) not purely, because they think 
to add affliction to my bonds.’ 

Οἱ μὲν ἐξ ἀγάπης and οἱ δε ἐξ ἐριθίας (vs. 17) are generic descrip- 
tions, and the subjects of καταγγέλλουσιν. 


Others, as Lightf., K1., Alf., Ead., R.V., take οἱ μὲν, of de as the subjects, 
and ἐξ ἀγ., ἐξ ἐριθ. as qualifying xarayy. Thus the rendering would be: 
‘The one preach Christ of love, because they know, etc., and the other 
class preach Christ of faction because they think,’ etc. According to this 
construction, however, ἐξ dy. and ἐξ ἐριθ. are substantially repetitions of 
διὰ εὐδοκ. and διὰ φθόν. kal €p. Lightf.’s objection to the other construc- 
tion, that thus τὸν Χτὸν xarayy. is made too emphatic, is without force. 
The emphasis is intended in connection with οὐχ ἁγνῶς. 


For the expressions οἱ ἐξ ἀγάπης and οἱ ἐξ ἐριθίας, comp. Jn. xviii. 
37; Rom. ii. 8; Gal. iii. 7. 

Eidéres and οἰόμενοι (vs. 17) have a causal force ; ‘since they 
know,’ ‘ since they think.’ 


I. 16, 17] THE ENVIOUS PREACHERS 21 


ἀπολογίαν : See on vs. 7. The meaning asthere. Notas Chrys., 
Theoph., Céc., the ‘account’ of his ministry which Paul was to 
render to God. 

xetpor: As Luke ii. 34; 1 Thess. iii. 3; 1 Tim.i.9. Orig. ‘to 
be laid’; ‘ to lie.’ Hence ‘to be appointed or destined.’ 

17. ἐριθίας : Not from ἔρις, but ἔριθος, ‘a hired servant.’ Hence 
ἐριθία is, primarily, ‘labor for hire’ (see Tob. ii. 11), and is applied 
to those who serve in official positions for their own selfish pur- 
poses, and, to that end, promote party-spirit or faction. Render, 
‘ faction.’ 

καταγγέλλουσιν : Substantially the same as κηρύσσουσιν, though 
among the compounds of ἀγγέλλειν it signifies ‘to proclaim with 
authority,’ with the additional idea of celebrating or commending. 
Only in Paul and Acts. 

οὐχ ἁγνῶς : ‘ Not purely’ or with unmixed motives, summing up 
all that is included in διὰ φθόν. καὶ ép., δι᾿ ἐριθ., and οἰόμ. θλίψιν ἐγ. 

The οὐχ ἁγνῶς and τὸν Χτὸν are suggestively in juxtaposition. 
(See on iv. 8.) 

οἰόμενοι : Only here in Paul, and only twice besides in N.T. 
(See LXX, Job xi. 2; 1 Macesv.61; 2 Macc. v. 21, vii. 24.) 1 
denotes, in class. Gk., a belief or judgment based principally upon 
one’s own feelings, or the peculiar relations of outward circum- 
stances to himself. In its radical sense it implies the supposition 
of something future and doubtful. In Attic Gk., an opinion with 
a collateral notion of wrong judgment or conceit (so in the cita- 
tions from LXX, above). The knowledge of Paul’s mission by his 
friends (εἰδότες) is offset by the malicious zmagining (οἰόμενοι) of 
his enemies. 

θλίψιν ἐγείρειν : ‘to raise up affliction.’ 


TR emipepev with DKL. 


The phrase is unique in N.T., but a similar usage is found in 
ion; Prov. X, £2, XV. 1, Xvil. 11; Sir. xxxili, ἢ. The meaning 
is not that they deliberately set themselves to aggravate Paul’s 
sufferings, but that their malice was gratified by the annoyance 
which their efforts to promote their own partisan ends caused him. 


18-26. What then comes of this insincere preaching and of this 
malice towards me? Only this, that whether Christ ts preached 
in pretext or in truth, he is preached, and in that I rejoice. Yes, 
and I will continue to rejoice; for I know that this train of affiic- 
tions will turn out for my salvation in answer to your prayer and~ 
through that which the Spirit of Christ shall supply to me. And 
thus will be fulfilled my earnest expectation and my hope that I 
Shall be put to shame in nothing; but that, as with all boldness 


94) Vi PHILIPPIANS [1.18 


I shall continue to preach and to suffer for Christs sake, Christ 
will be magnified in this afflicted body of mine, whether 7 live or 
die. For as to life, life to me ts Christ. As to death, tt is gain. 
Low, tf to continue to live means fruitful labor, I have nothing to 
say as to my own preference. Lam strongly appealed to from both 
sides. If I should consult only my own desire, 7 should wish to go 
and be with Christ, for that ts by far the better thing. But, on 
the other hand, 7 am assured that, for your sake, it is more neces- 
sary that I should continue to live; and therefore I know that I 
shall remain with you, that I may promote your advancement and 
your joy in your faith; so that, in Christ Jesus, your joy in me 
may abound through my being present with you again. 


18. τί yap: To be followed by the interrogation-point. Inter- 
jectional, and called out by what immediately precedes. (Comp. 
Rom. iii. 3.) They think to raise up affliction for me in my chains. 
What then? Suppose this isso. (Comp. Eng. ‘for why.’) For 
yap in interrogations suggested by what precedes, see Mt. xxvil. 23 ; 
" Rom, iv. 3, ΧΙ. 34; 1 Cor. ii. 16, xi. 22. (See Win; {|| 1) 
πλὴν ὅτι : ‘only that.’ 


TR omits οτι, as DKL. B reads ore without πλην. 


What does it signify? Only that, in any event, Christ is preached. 
He leaves the annoying side of the case to take care of itself, and 
passes on to the encouraging aspect. For πλὴν, comp. iii. τό, 
iv. 14; 1 Cor. xi.11; Eph.v. 33. Πλὴν with ὅτε only Acts xx, 23, 
(See Blass, Gramm. § 77, 13.) 

παντὶ τρόπῳ : ‘in every way’ of preaching the gospel. 

εἴτε προφάσει εἴτε ἀληθείᾳ : Expanding and defining παντὶ τρόπῳ. 

προφάσει: Using the name of Christ as a cover or mask for 
personal and selfish ends. For the word, comp. 1 Thess. ii. 5. 
Used absolutely, Mk. xii. 40; Lk. xx. 47. 

Χριστὸς καταγγέλλεται : Christianity thrives even through insin- 
cere preaching. The enemies of the truth proclaim it by their 
opposition. The words imply Paul’s confidence in the power of 
the mere proclamation of Christ as a fact. 


Mey. thinks that the interrogation-point should be placed after katayy.- 
instead of τί γάρ. In that case the rendering would be: ‘ What else takes 
place save that Christ is preached?’ But though τί γάρ as an independent 
question occurs only twice, Paul often uses τί οὖν in that way. There is no 
instance in his letters of πλὴν ὅτι = τί ἀλλὸ ὅτι. He uses πλὴν elsewhere 
in the sense given above. The construction of καὶ ἐν τούτῳ χαίρω is simpler 
and more natural if united with πλὴν... καταγγέλλεται than if taken as an 
answer to a question, Tl... Karayy.; (See Dw.) 


ἐν τούτῳ: In the fact that Christ is preached, though with 
different motives. 


I. 18, 19] SALVATION THROUGH PERSECUTION 23 


χαίρω: Joy is a frequent theme in this letter. Beng. says: 
“The sum of the epistle is, ‘I rejoice, do ye rejoice.’” (See i. 
male, 17, 1, 28, 20, ili. I, iv. 1,'4,, 10.) 

ἀλλὰ καὶ χαιρήσομαι : Punctuate with a period or colon after 
χαίρω, thus connecting οἶδα yap with ἀλλὰ καὶ χαιρήσομαι (so WH., 
Tisch.), ‘I rejoice. Nay but I will also continue to rejoice, since 
I know,’ etc. His thought passes from the present to the future 
joy, which is assured by their prayer and by the supply of the 
Spirit of Christ. 

19. οἶδα yap ὅτι τοῦτο μοι ἀποβήσεται εἰς σωτηρίαν : ‘for I know 
that this shall turn out to my salvation.’ 


yap with WH. Tisch. B 37, 61, 116, Sah., read δε. 


Οἶδα as distinguished from γινώσκειν is the knowledge of intuition 
or satisfied conviction, or absolute knowledge. So often, by John, 
Bie nnist (ill: TL, V. 32, vi. 6, 61, 64, Vil. 29, Vill. 14, xiii. I,. 11). 
Se vPaul, of God (2 Cor. xi. 11, xii. 2). In Jn. xxi. 17 the two 
verbs appear together. Οἶδα is often used by Paul in appealing to 
what his readers know well, or ought, or might naturally be ex- 
pected, to know (Rom. ii. 2, vil. 14; 1 Cor. vi. 2; Gal. iv. 13; 
ἘΠ 116 55: 10.6.5. etc. ). 

τοῦτο: In a general sense, explained by τὰ κατ᾽ ἐμὲ (vs. 12). 
This whole train of afflictions which has attended my preaching 
of the gospel. 


So Lightf., K1., De W., Lum., Hack., and the patristic interpreters. But 
Mey., Ellic., Dw., Lips., Weiss, Ead., Alf., Beet, refer to the τούτῳ of vs. 18. 
It seems unlikely, however, that Paul should have said ‘I know that the 
fact that in every way Christ is preached will turn out to my salvation.’ 
Kl. justly remarks that, on this supposition, Paul would have been more 
likely to express his expectation of a favorable result which would offset 
the fears or wishes of those who looked for an evil result, than of a result 
which would redound to his own advantage. 


ἀποβήσεται eis: ‘Shall turn out to’; ‘effectively go to.’ The 
formula ἀποβαίνειν eis is not used elsewhere by Paul, and only 
in one other pass. in N.T. (Lk. xxi. 13). In LXX, Job xiii. 16 
(cited here), xv. 31; Ex. ii. 4. 

σωτηρίαν : Not his release from prison, since the result will be 
the same whether he lives or dies (vs. 20). Nor ‘ will be salutary 
for me’ (Mey.), since Paul habitually uses σωτηρία in its Messianic 
connection. Nor does it mean ‘salvation from eternal destruction’ 
(Weiss, Kl.). The key to the meaning is found in vs. 28, ii. 12 ; 
Rom. 1. 16; and especially 2 Thess. 11. 13. It is used here in its 
widest N.T. sense ; not merely of future salvation, but of the whole 
saving and sanctifying work of Christ in the believer. 

διὰ τῆς ὑμῶν δεήσεως καὶ ἐπιχορηγίας τοῦ πνεύματος Ἰησοῦ Χριστοῦ: 
‘through your supplication and the supply of the Spirit of Jesus 
Christ.’ Δέησις ὑμῶν and ἐπιχορηγία τ. rv. IX are thus two dis- 


24 PHILIPPIANS [I. 19 


tinct instruments of ἀποβήσεται, and therefore are not both in- 
cluded under the one article τῆς. 


Lightf., Alf., Lips., Weiss, make τῆς cover both nouns, rendering ‘ through 
your supplication and supply of the Spirit,’ etc.; 2.4. the supply of the Spirit 
which you furnish through your supplication. This construction would, 
further, seem to involve the uniting of ὑμῶν with both nouns. So, dis- 
tinctly, Weiss, Alf., Lips., and apparently Lightf. It is claimed that if 
two distinct instruments were intended, τῆς would be repeated. But: 
I. The absence of a second article does not necessitate the inclusion of 
both nouns under τῆς, since each has its own defining genitive, and there- 
fore the second article may be dispensed with (Win. xix. 54). 2. Even if 
the two were included under the one article, that would not be decisive as 
to the union of ὑμῶν with both. If the genitive τοῦ πνεῦματος is subjective 
(see below), there are two personal agents— you, in your supplication, 
and the Spirit with its supply —codperating for the same end. Nor, if 
ὑμῶν is taken with δεήσεως only, is the idea excluded that the supply of the 
Spirit is in answer to the prayer of the Philippians. 


διὰ τῆς ὑμῶν δεήσεως : Paul makes mention of the Philippians in 
his own supplications (vs. 4). Here he assumes that their fellow- 
ship with him in furtherance of the gospel (vs. 5), and their 
partaking with him of grace (vs. 7), will call out their supplica- 
tions for him. Comp. 1 Thess. v. 25 ; 2 Thess. ili. 1 f.; 2 Cor. i. 
11; Rom. xv. 30-32; Philem. 22. Also Ign. Philad.v. ἀλλ᾽ ἡ 
προσευχὴ ὑμῶν με ἀπαρτίσει, ‘ But your prayer will make me perfect.’ 

ἐπιχορηγίας : Only here and Eph. iv. 16. Lightf.’s explanation 
of ἐπι, bountiful supply, is unwarranted. The force of ἐπι is 
directive. Comp. ἐπιχορηγῶν (Gal. iii. 5), where the idea of 
bountifulness resides in the verb. (See Col. ii. 19 ; 2 Cor. ix. το.) 
In 2 Pet. i. 11, πλουσίως is added to ἐπιχορηγηθήσεται. 

Tov πνεύματος Ἰησοῦ Χριστοῦ: The genitive is subjective, ‘the 
supply which the Spirit of Jesus Christ affords’; not appositional, 
‘the supply which is the Spirit,’ etc. Lightf.’s combination of the 
two —the Spirit at once the giver and the gift—is contrary to 
N.T. usage. The exact phrase, wv. IX, occurs only here. Πνεῦμα 
Χριστοῦ is found Rom. viii.g; 1 Pet. i. 11. The Holy Spirit is 
called the Spirit of Christ (Rom. viii. 9; Gal. iv. 6), not as pro- 
ceeding from Christ (Thdrt.), since the impartation of the Holy 
Spirit is habitually ascribed by Paul to the Father. (See 1 Cor. 
vi. 19; Eph. i. 17; Gal. iii. 5; 1 Thess. iv. 8.) In Jn. 11: 24 
Christ is represented as dispensing the Spirit. The Spirit of Jesus 
Christ here is the Spirit of God which animated Jesus in his human 
life, and which, in the risen Christ, is the life-principle of believ- 
ers (1 Cor. xv. 45; comp. Rom. viii. 9-11). Christ is fully 
endowed with the Spirit (Mk. i. 10; Jn. i. 32); he sends the 
Spirit from the Father to the disciples, and he is the burden of 
the Spirit’s testimony (Jn. xv. 26, xvi. 7, 9, 10,15). The Para- 
clete is given in answer to Christ’s prayer (Jn. xiv. 16). Christ 
identifies his own coming and presence with that of the Spirit 


Ι. 19, 20] CHRIST WILL BE MAGNIFIED 25 


(Jn. xiv. 17, 18). Paul identifies, him personally with the Spirit 
(2 Cor. iii. 17). The Spirit which Christ has is possessed also by 
members of his body (Rom. viii. 9 ; Gal. iv. 6). In Rom. viii. 9, 
10, Paul uses πνεῦμα θεοῦ, πνεῦμα Χριστοῦ, and Χριστὸς as convert- 
“ible terms. 

20. κατὰ τὴν ἀποκαραδοκίαν καὶ ἐλπίδα μου: Connect with dzo- 
βήσεται (vs. 19). This shall turn out to my salvation as I am 
expecting and hoping. 

ἀποκαραδοκίαν : Only here and Rom. viii. 19. A picturesque 
word: ἀπὸ, ‘away’; κάρα, ‘the head’; δοκεῖν (Ion.), ‘to watch.’ 
Watching something with the head turned away from other ob- 
jects; hence zmzfent watching. So Chrys. 7 μεγάλη καὶ ἐπιτετά- 
μενη προσδοκία. Seldom in patristic Greek. Kapadoxety occurs in 
class. Gk. (Hdt. vii. 163 ; Xen. Mem. 111. 5, 6; Aristoph. Knzghés, 
663, etc.), but not the compound ἀποκαρ., which, however, is found 
in later Gk., as Polybius and Plutarch. Lightf.’s ref. to Josephus, 
B. J. iii. 7, 26, is felicitous. See also Philo, De Jos. 527 Ὁ. 

Others, however, give ἀπὸ a local sense —the place from which (Ellic., 


Ead.); others an intensive sense, ‘to wait to the end; wait it out’ (Mey. 
on Rom. viii. 19. See also Crem. and Thay. Zexs.). 


ἐλπίδα : The inward attitude, while ἀποκαρ. represents the out- 
ward attitude. “EAzis sometimes in N.T. as the odject of hope: 
fue thing hoped for. (866 Gal. v. 5; Col. i. 5; Heb. vi. 18; 
Tit. ii. 13.) This can hardly be the meaning here. 

ὅτι : ‘that’; not ‘because.’ It denotes the object of the hope, 
supplying the specific definition of the more general eis σωτηρίαν 
(vs. 19). 

ἐν οὐδενὶ, ‘in nothing’: in no point or respect. Not ‘by no 
one,’ since no persons are brought forward in what follows. 

αἰσχυνθήσομαι : ‘shall I be put to shame.’ Rare in N.T., and 
only twice in Paul. Frequent in LXX, as Ps. xxxv. (xxxiv.) 4, 26; 
Ixx. (Ixix.) 2. (Comp. 2 Cor. x. 8.) He will not be brought into 
disgrace by the frustration of his efforts and the disappointment 
of his hopes. He will not be shown to be a deluded enthusiast, 
a fanatic, a preacher of a fancied and impossible good. On the 
contrary, — 

μεγαλυνθήσεται Χριστὸς ἐν τῷ σώματί μου: : 

ῬΜεγαλυνθήσεται = ‘shall be glorified’ ; lit. ‘ enlarged.’ Often in 
LXX for ὅπη. (See 2 Sam. vii. 26; 1 Chron. xvii. 24; Ps. xxxiv. 
[xxxiii.] 3, xxxv. [xxxiv.] 27.) 

ἐν τῷ σώματί pov: Instead of the simple ἐμοί; because the 
question of bodily life or death was imminent. In his afflicted, 
imprisoned body Christ will be magnified. (Comp. 2 Cor. iv. 10; 
Gal. vi. 17.) 


The force of this positive and general statement, ‘ Christ shall 
be magnified in my body,’ is heightened by three incidental 


26 PHILIPPIANS [I. 20, 21 


clauses, which are to the following effect: 1. Christ will be 
magnified, though Paul shall refuse to modify his preaching and 
shall continue to proclaim the gospel with all boldness. 2. Christ’s 
being magnified in spite of opposition will be nothing new. It has 
always been so. 3. The result will be the same whether Paul shall 
live or die. 


ἐν πάσῃ παρρησίᾳ : in contrast with αἰσχυνθήσομαι, as τ Jn. ii. 28 ; 
LXX, Prov. xii. 5. The primary meaning of παρρησία is ‘ free 
and bold speaking’; speaking out every word (πᾶν, ῥῆμα). The 
verb παρρησιάζεσθαι always in N.T. in connection with speaking. 
The dominant idea of παρρησία is boldness, confidence. (See 
2 Cor. ili. 12, vil. 4; Eph. vi. 19; αὶ Thess. ii. 2; Philemogeeame 
Lightf. on Col. ii. 15.) It is opposed to fear (Jn. vii. 13), and to 
ambiguity or reserve (Jn. xi. 14). The idea of publicity some- 
times attaches to it, but as secondary (Jn. vil. 4). Πάσῃ, the 
direct opposite of οὐδενὶ ; every way in which boldness can mani- 
fest itself. (Comp. Eph. vi. 18.) Christ will be magnified in his 
bold and uncompromising preaching of the unpalatable truth. 

ὡς πάντοτε καὶ νῦν : ‘As always, so now.’ Kai in the apodosis 
answers to ws in the protasis. (See Mt. vi. 10; Jn. vi. 57; 
Gal. i. 9; 1 Jn. 11. 18; Win. liti. 5.). It is the ᾿᾿εδυ θην οἱ 
history that Christ has always been magnified in spite of oppo- 
sition. As Paul’s imprisonment has, up to this time, ministered 
to the progress of the gospel (vs. 12), he is no less confident of 
the same result now that his fate is hanging in the balance. 

εἴτε διὰ ζωῆς εἴτε διὰ θανάτου : “ Inimicis suis insultat, quod ei 
nocere non valeant. Si enim eum occiderint, martyrio coronabi- 
tur. Si servaverint ad Christum annunciandum, plurimum facient 
fructum ”’ (Jer.). 


The last words lead him to speak of his own feelings respecting 
the possible issue of his trial. 


21. ἐμοὶ yap τὸ ζῆν Χριστὸς : ‘For to me to live is Christ.’ For 
Paul life is summed up in Christ. Christ is its inspiration, its aim, 
its end. To trust, love, obey, preach, follow, suffer, — all things 
are with and in Christ. So Theoph. καινήν τινα ζωὴν ζῶ, καὶ ὃ 
Χριστὸς μοί ἐστι τὰ πάντα, καὶ πνοὴ; καὶ ζωὴ, Kat φῶς : “A kind of 
new life I live, and Christ is all things to me, both breath and life 
and light.” See further on ἐν αὐτῷ (ch. iii. 9), and comp. iil. 7—10, 
20, 21; Rom. vi. 11; Gal. fi. 20; 2 Cor. v. 15 ; Col. i. 3. ΔΙ 
Ign. Eph. iii., IX τὸ ἀδιάκριτον ἡμῶν ζῆν, ‘our inseparable life’ ; 
and Mag. 1, ἸΧ τοῦ διὰ παντὸς ἡμῶν ζῆν, ‘our never-failing life.’ 
Τὸ ζῇν is the continuous present. In the three other passages of 
Paul in which it occurs (vs. 22; Rom. viii. 12; 2 Cor. i. 8), it 
denotes the process, not the principle, of life. eee 


Ι 


( 


I. 21, 22] WHETHER TO LIVE OR DIE? 27 


τὸ ἀποθανεῖν κέρδος : ‘to die is gain’; because it will introduce 
him to complete union with Christ, unhampered by limitations of 
the flesh. His gain will therefore magnify Christ. (See Rom. viii. 
17.) ‘This is in striking contrast with the Stoic apathy which, in 
proud resignation, leaves all to fate. (See a beautiful passage in 
Pfleiderer, Paulinismus, 2 Aufl. p. 219.) 
22. εἰ δὲ τὸ ζῇν ἐν σαρκί, τοῦτό μοι καρπὸς ἔργου; . . . καὶ τί 
αἱρήσομαι οὐ γνωρίζω : 
B reads αἱρησωμαι. 


Render : ‘ But if living in the flesh — (if)-this is fruit of toil to me, 
then what I shall choose I do not declare.’ 


The protasis is thus εἰ δὲ τὸ (Hv... ἔργου. The apodosis is καὶ τί 
αἱρήσομαι, etc. The subject of the protasis, τὸ ζῇν ἐν σαρκί, is resumed by 
τοῦτο, which brings out the contrast of καρπὸς ἔργου with the subjective 
personal κέρδος (vs. 21). The apodosis is introduced by καὶ ‘then.’ (So 
Chrys., CEc., Mey., Ellic., Dw., De W., Alf., Lum., ΚΙ]. Lips., Ead.) Sev- 
eral other arrangements have been advocated, the principal one of which is 
to take εἰ δὲ τὸ ζῇν ἐν σαρκί as protasis, and τοῦτο... ἔργου as apodosis, 
making καὶ merely connective: ‘ But if living in the flesh (be my lot), 
this is fruit of toil to me, and what I shall choose I do not declare.’ 
(So Weiss and Beet.) Lightf. suggests an arrangement in which he has 
been anticipated by Rilliet, —to take εἰ as implying an interrogation (as 
Rom. ix. 22; Acts xxiii. 9), and to regard the apodosis as suppressed: 
‘But what if my living in the flesh is to Lear fruit? In fact what to choose 
I know not.’ The rendering adopted seems to me to satisfy most of the 
conditions, though neither of those proposed is entirely free from objection. 
On the one hand, the awkward ellipsis required by the second appears quite 
inadmissible. On the other hand, the cat introducing the apodosis after a 
conditional protasis with εἰ is of doubtful authority, though I think that 
Jas. iv. 15, with the reading ζήσομεν καὶ ποιήσομεν, is a fair case in point, 
not to mention 2 Cor, ii. 2, which is perhaps a little more doubtful. Some 
weight also should be allowed to the LXX passages, Ex. xxxill. 22; Lev. 
xiv. 34, Xxill. 10, xxv. 2; Josh. iii. 8, viii. 24. Though not strictly analo- 
gous, these imply a sort of condition in the protasis. The exact construc- 
tion is certainly found in Gk. poetry (see Hom. //. v. 897; Od. xiv. 112). Δὲ 
is also used in the same way (Hom. //. i. 135, xii. 246; Od. xii.54). In Apoc. 
ili. 20, kal in the apodosis after ἐάν is retained by Tisch. and stands in marg. 
in WH. (See Blass, § 77,6.) The use of εἰ as explained by Lightf., though 
legitimate, leaves some awkwardness attaching to καὶ. (See Win. lxiv. 7.) 


Ei is not conditional or problematical (Beet), but syllogistic. 
(Comp. Rom. v.17.) It assumes that fruitfulness will follow his 
continuance in life. Τοῦτο is not redundant, but resumptive and 
emphatic, calling attention to remaining in life. It was just Zs, 
in contrast with dying, which was to mean fruit of toil. 

καρπὸς ἔργου : fruit which follows toil and issues from it. 

Ti αἱρήσομαι. Ti for πότερον. (Comp. Mt. ix. 5, xxi. 31; Lk. 
Vii. 42, Xxii. 27; and see Win. xxv. 1.) The future αἱρήσομαι 
takes the place of the deliberative subjunctive (Win. xli. 4 4). 

ov γνωρίζω: ‘I do not declare.’ Most modern commentators 
render ‘I do not perceive’ or ‘know.’ The meaning ‘to make 


28 PHILIPPIANS [I. 22, 23 


known,’ ‘ point out,’ ‘declare,’ is extremely rare in class. One 
case occurs (Aésch. Prom. 487). In the sense of ‘to become 
known’ (passive) it is found in Plato and Aristotle (see Stallbaum 
on Phaedrus, 262 B); but the prevailing sense is ‘to become 
acquainted with,’ ‘to gain knowledge of.’ In the N.T. the sense, 
without exception, is ‘to make known’ or ‘declare.’ This is also 
the prevailing sense in LXX, though there are a few instances of 
the other meaning, as Job xxxiv. 25. See, on the other hand, 
1 Sam,'vi. 2, x. 8, xiv. 12; Dan. 1.6, 10, v.75; Ps. xvi, (ae 
cit. Acts ii. 28. For Paul’s usage, see iv. 6; 1 Cor. xii. 3, xv. 1; 
Gal. i. 11. No sufficient reason can be urged for departing from 
universal N.T. usage. Paul says ‘to die is gain; but if the case 
is put to me that it is for your interest that I should continue to 
live, then I have nothing to say.about my personal choice.’ Pos- 
sibly he felt that under the strong pressure of his desire to depart, 
he might be tempted to express himself too strongly in favor of 
his own wish. As it is, he will leave the matter in the hands 
of his Master. ‘“ Marvellous!” says Chrys. ‘“‘ How great was 
his philosophy! How hath he both cast, out the desire of the 
present life, and yet thrown no reproach upon it.” 
23. συνέχομαι δε ἐκ τῶν δύο: 


The TR ‘ap for δε is very slenderly supported. 


Aé introduces an explanation, and at the same time separates 
it from that which is to be explained. (See Jn. iii. 19, vi. 393 
1 Cor. i. 12.) It may be rendered ‘now.’ Ido not declare my 
preference. Now the reason is that I am in a strait, etc. uve- 
χομαι is used by Paul only here and 2 Cor. v.14. (See Lk. xii. 
50; Acts xviii. 5; LXX; Job iii. 24, vii. 11, x. 1, xxxi. 23.) The 
figure is that of one who is in a narrow road between two walls. 
I am held together, so that I cannot move to the one or the other 
side. (Comp. Ign. Rom. vi.) The pressure comes from (ἐκ) both 
sides, from ‘ ¢he two’ (τῶν δύο) considerations just mentioned, 
departing and abiding in the flesh. 

τὴν ἐπιθυμίαν ἔχων : ‘having the desire.’ Τὴν has the force of a 
possessive pronoun, ‘my’ desire. ἜἘπιθυμία is used in N.T. in both 
a good and a bad sense. (Comp. Lk. xxii. 15 and Mk. iv. 19; 
Rom. i. 24, vii. 7; Gal. v. 16; 1 Jn. 11. 16.) 

εἰς τὸ ἀναλῦσαι : Lit. ‘to break up’; ‘unloose’; ‘undo.’ It is 
used of loosing a ship from its moorings, of breaking camp, and 
of death. Paul uses ἀνάλυσις of his own death (2 Tim. iv. 6). 
If he employs the verb here with any consciousness of its figura- 
tive meaning, the figure is probably that of breaking camp. Paul’s 
circumstances would more naturally suggest the military than the 
nautical metaphor; and, singularly enough, nautical expressions 
and metaphors are very rare in his writings. ‘The idea of striking 
the tent and breaking camp falls in with 2 Cor. v. 1. For the 


I. 23, 24] TO BE WITH CHRIST IS BETTER 29 


construction with εἰς, comp. Rom. i. 11, 11]. 26, xii. 2; 1 Thess. 
mm. 10; Heb. xi. 3. 

σὺν Χριστῷ εἶναι : Beng. says : “ To depart was sometimes desired 
by the saints (of the O.T.), but to be with Christ is peculiar to 
the New Testament.” Paul assumes that, on departing this life, 
he will immediately be with the Lord. (Comp. 2 Cor. v. 6-8 ; 
Acts vii. 59.) On the other hand, Paul elsewhere treats death as 
a sleep from which believers will awake at the appearing of the 
Bord (1 Cor. xv. 51, 52; 1 Thess. iy. 14, 16). 

The passage does not lend itself to controversies on the condi- 
tion of the dead in Christ. It is not probable that the dogmatic 
consciousness enters at all into this utterance of the apostle. Dis- 
cussions like those of Weiss and Klopper as to the agreement or 
disagreement of the words here with those of Cor. and Thess. 
are beside the mark, as is the assumption that Paul’s views on this 
subject had undergone a change which is indicated in this passage. 
Lightf. is quite safe in the remark that the one mode of represen- 
tation must be qualified by the other. Weiss (470/. Theol. § 101) 
justly says that “if the more particular dealing with eschatological 
proceedings is reserved in the four principal epistles, to a yet 
greater extent is this the case in the epistles of the captivity, with- 
out its being possible to show any essential change in the position 
on these points.” In this familiar epistle, in this passage, written 
under strong emotion, Paul throws out, almost incidentally, the 
thought that death implies, for him, immediate presence with 
Christ. If it be asserted that death introduces believers into a 
condition of preparation for perfect glorification, that supposition 
is not excluded by either these words or those in Cor. and Thess. 
In 2 Cor. v. 8 the intimation is the same as in this passage. In 
any case we are warranted in the belief that the essential element 
of future bliss, whether in an intermediate or in a fully glorified 
state, will be the presence of Christ. ‘These words do not exclude 
the idea of an intermediate state, nor do the words in 1 Cor. 
exclude the idea of being with Christ. 

πολλῷ yap μᾶλλον κρεῖσσον: ‘ for it is very far better.’ 

DF®'G read ποόσω for πολλω. 


yap with x* ABC 17, 31, 47,67, WH. Tisch. Omitted by x* DFGKLP, 
Vulg., Goth., Syr.4*t, Basm., Arm., Ath. 


Notice the heaping up of comparatives according to Paul’s 
habit. (Comp. Rom. viii. 37 ; 2 Cor. vil. 13, iv. 17 ; Eph. iii. 20.) 
Render, ‘very far better.’ 

24. τὸ δε ἐπιμένειν TH σαρκὶ : 

For eripevery B reads επιμειναι. 
BDFGKL add ev with σαρκι. ἐπιμένειν ἐν occurs only in Paul (1 Cor. xvi. 8). 


Observe the change of construction from τὴν ἐπιθυμίαν ἔχων. 
Render, ‘to abide by the flesh.’ Not precisely the same as ro ζῇν 


30 PHILIPPIANS [I. 24-26 


ἐν σαρκί (vs. 22), which was a little more abstract, expressing life 
in general, while this refers specifically to his own staying by the 
flesh. (Comp. Rom. vi. 1.) 

ἀναγκαιότερον : The comparative is slightly illogical. The strong 
emotion which shaped the comparative πολλῴ μᾶλλον κρεῖσσον 
carries on that form, by its own momentum, to the succeeding 
adjective. The point of comparison is not definitely conceived. 
Living is the more necessary under the present circumstances. 
(Comp. Seneca, Zp. 98: “ Vitae suae adjici nihil desiderat sua 
causa, sed eorum quibus utilis est.” Also a striking passage 
Lp. 104). Two practical errors are suggested by these words, — 
the subsiding of all interest in the future world, and the undue 
longing for it which strikes at patient submission to the will of 
God. There is also to be noted the higher grade of self-abnega- 
tion exhibited by Paul, not in the casting aside of earthly pleasures 
and honors, which really possessed little attraction for him, but in 
the subjugation of the higher longing to enjoy the perfect vision 
of Christ. 

25. καὶ τοῦτο πεποιθὼς οἶδα: ‘And being confident of this I 
know.’ Construe τοῦτο with πεποιθὼς, not with οἶδα, as Lightf., 
who takes zez. adverbially with οἶδα, ‘I confidently know,’ citing 
Rom. xiv. 14; Eph. v. 5. But these are hardly in point. (Comp. 
vs. 6.) Οἶδα is not prophetic. It merely expresses personal 
conviction. 

μενῶ καὶ παραμενῶ : 

TR συμπαραμενω with DEKLP and some Fathers. 


For similar word-plays, see Rom. i. 20, v. 19; 2 Cor. iv. 8, 
v.43; 2 Thess. iii. 11; Acts vill. 30. Mev® is absolute, ‘to abide 
in life’: παραμενῶ is relative, ‘to abide with some one.’ Ilapa- 
μενῶ in a manner defines the simple verb. The value of his 
remaining in life lies chiefly in his being with his brethren and 
promoting their spiritual welfare. Paul uses μένειν in the sense of 
continuing to live, only here and 1 Cor. xv. 6. 

εἰς τὴν ὑμῶν προκοπὴν καὶ χαρὰν τῆς πίστεως : ‘for your progress 
and joy in the faith.’ For προκοπὴν, see on vs. 12. The genitives 
τῆς πίστεως and ὑμῶν to be taken with both nouns. (Comp. i. 20, 
and see Win. xix.) For the phrase ‘joy of faith,’ comp. χαρὰ ἐν τῷ 
_ πιστεύειν (Rom. xv. 13). Progressiveness and joyfulness alike 

characterise faith. 


Kl. and Weiss take πίστεως with χαρὰν only. 

26. iva τὸ καύχημα ὑμῶν περισσεύῃ : ‘that your glorying may 
abound.’ “Iva marks the ultimate aim of μενῶ καὶ παραμενῶ, and 
the clause defines more specifically the general statement εἰς τὴν 
bp. mpox., etc. Καύχημα is the matter or ground of glorying, not 
the act of glorying, which would be καύχησις, as Rom. iii. 27 ; 
2 Cor. i. 12. (Comp. Rom. iv. 2; 1 Cor. ix. 15 ; Gal. vi. 4.) 


Βα των “5. “ὦ 


I. 26] I SHALL ABIDE WITH YOU 31 


Ὑμῶν is subjective: Not ‘my ground of glorying in you,’ but 
‘your ground of glorying.’ 

ἐν Χριστῷ Ἰησοῦ: With περισσεύῃ, not with καύχημα. (Comp. 
i.g; Rom. i. 7; Col. ii. 7.) Christ is the element or sphere in 
which the abounding develops. Christ is always needed to con- 
trol, no less than to promote, overflow. The abundant glorying 
does not take place in the sphere of human ambition, like that of 
the Jew in his law and his nationality, — the ‘ boasting according 
Serene Mesh” (2 Cor. xi. 18); ‘in men’ (1 Cor. iil. 21) ; ‘in 
appearance’ (2 Cor. v. 12). 

ἐν ἐμοὶ : The immediate occasion of the glorying would be Paul. 
The ground of boasting would attach specially to him as the rep- 
resentative of the cause which was the great matter of glorying. 
Ἔν ἐμοὶ is a special cause or ground within the sphere designated 
by ἐν Xl. 

διὰ τῆς ἐμῆς παρουσίας πάλιν πρὸς ὑμᾶς : Connect with ἐν ἐμοὶ as 
a special instance. The ground of glorying is first, and compre- 
hensively, in Christ ; then in Paul as representing Christ ; then in 
Paul’s personal presence again with them. Παρουσίας, in its ordin- 
ary sense, as 1]. 12; 1 Cor. xvi.17,etc. There is a slight emphasis 
on the word as contrasted with letters or messages. How far 
Paul’s confidence in his liberation and future personal intercourse 
with the Philippians was justified, it is impossible to determine 
without more knowledge concerning the latter portion of his 
career. 


He now proceeds to give his readers some practical exhorta- 
tions. Until he can personally minister to their faith, he must 
content himself with writing to them. Their standard of Christian 
consistency and efficiency must not be regulated by his personal 
presence or absence. 


27-30. Only, under any circumstances, — whether I shall come 
to you, as I hope to do, or remain absent, as I may be compelled to 
@o,—T exhort you to bear yourselves as becomes members of a 
Christian community, in your steadfastness, unity, and active exer- 
tion on behalf of the gospel, and in your courage in the face of your 
adversaries ; which will demonstrate the hopelessness of their efforts 
and their doom to destruction, and will be God’s own evidence to 
you of your own salvation. For the privilege conferred upon you 
of suffering for Christ will show that you are one with him, and 
partakers of that same grace which has enabled me to contend for 
his cause, and of that same conflict which you saw me undergo, 
and which you now hear of my still waging in my Roman prison. 


32 PHILIPPIANS : [1. 27 


27. μόνον ἀξίως τοῦ εὐαγγελίου τοῦ Χριστοῦ πολιτεύεσθε : ‘ only 
let your manner of life be worthy of the gospel of Christ.’ Fora 
similar usage of μόνον see 1 Cor. vil. 39 ; Gal. 11. 10; 2 Thess. ii. 7. 
Not as though he would say : ‘ Look to your own conduct and God 
will take care of me’; nor as though he intended to state the only 
condition on which he would come to them ; but, ‘ whether I come 
or not, I have only to say,’ etc. Only on this condition can he 
successfully minister to their furtherance and joy of faith if he 
shall come to them, and only thus can these be maintained if 
he shall not come. 

πολιτεύεσθε : Lit.‘ be citizens’ ; ‘exercise your citizenship.’ The 
verb occurs in N.T. only here and Acts xxiii. 1. In LXX, see 
2 Macc. vi. 1, xi. 25. For the kindred noun πολίτευμα see ch. iii. 
20. Paul’s usual word for Christian conduct is περιπατεῖν, “ to 
walk’ (Rom. vi. 4, viii. 4; 1 Cor. 111. 3), with ἀξίως, Eph. iv. 1; 
Col. i. το. The primary reference is to their membership in the 
church at Philippi; and the word is selected as pointing to their 
mutual duties as members of a local Christian commonwealth ; 
probably not without an underlying thought of the universal Christ- 
jan commonwealth embracing all the saints in earth and heaven. 
(Comp. iii. 20, and Clem. Rom. ad Cor. iii., xxi., liv.) Clement 
develops the idea of individual obligation to a spiritual polity by 
comparison with the obligations due to secular states, in lv. See 
also Polyc. ad Phil. v. The word would naturally suggest itself to 
Paul, contemplating from the metropolitan centre the grandeur of 
the Roman state, and would appeal to the Philippians as citizens 
of a Roman ‘colonia’ which aimed to reproduce, on a smaller 
scale, the features of the parent commonwealth. (See Introd. II.) 
Here, as elsewhere in Paul’s letters, may be detected the influence 
of Stoicism upon his mode of thought. Stoic philosophy had 
leavened the moral vocabulary of the civilised world. Its lan- 
guage was fruitful in moral terms and images and furnished appro- 
priate forms of expression for certain great Christian ideas. A 
favorite Stoic conception was that of a world-wide state. (See 
Lightf.’s essay on “ St. Paul and Seneca,” Comm. p. 270 ff.) 

ἀξίως τοῦ εὐαγγελίου τοῦ Χριστοῦ: ‘in a manner worthy of the 
gospel of Christ.’ Tod Xrod is the objective genitive, — the gospel 
which proclaims Christ. This is Paul’s more usual formula. (See 
i ΠΟΥ ΧΗ a 2 Cor. Ἴ 12: Gal. i735 1 1 1688: 11]: 2.) We find 
also εὐαγγ. τοῦ υἱοῦ αὐτοῦ (Rom. i. 9); τοῦ κυρίου ἡμῶν Ἰησοῦ 
(2᾿ Thess. i, 8) ; τῆς δόξης τοῦ “Χριστοῦ (: Cor. iv. 4). 


iva εἴτε ἐλθὼν καὶ ἰδὼν ὑμᾶς εἴτε ἀπὼν ἀκούω τὰ περὶ ὑμῶν. 
x* ACDFGKL read axovew. 
The construction is rhetorically inexact. Ἵνα goes with ἀκούω, 


and εἴτε ἐλθ. x. id. tu. and εἴτε ἀπ. are appositional with the per- 
sonal subject of ἀκούω. ᾿Ακούω, which in regular construction 


1, 27] IN ONE SPIRIT 33 


would be ἀκούων followed by γνῶ or some similar verb, takes the 
finite form from the suggestion of the personal subject in ἀπὼν. 
The construction is moulded by the thought of absence, which is 
last and most prominent in the writer’s mind. The verb which 
would have been used on the supposition of his seeing them is 
dropped, and that which implies his absence is alone expressed. 
Ta περὶ ὑμῶν, as ii. 19, 20; Col. iv. 8; comp. τὰ κατ᾽ ἐμὲ (ch. i. 12): 
‘the things concerning you’; ‘your state’ (R.V.). Render the 
whole: ‘That whether I come and see you or remain absent, I 
may hear of your state.’ 

ὅτι στήκετε, etc.: Explaining the details of their ‘state.’ Σ τήκειν 
mostly in Paul, and always signifying 7721 standing, acquiring that 
meaning, however, from the context. In Mk. iii. 31, xi. 25, it 
means simply ‘ to stand.’ 

ἐν ἑνὶ πνεύματι : ‘in one spirit.’ (Comp. Eph. iv. 4, and see 
Clem. ad Cor. xlvi.) Πνεῦμα here is not the Holy Spirit (as 
Weiss), but that disposition which is communicated in Christ to 
believers, filling their souls, and generating their holy qualities 
and works. In the possession of this they are πνευματικοί, ---- they 
are joined to the Lord and are one spirit with him (1 Cor. vi. 17. 
eet st TO: Th) ny s\n We Gas Aces Wi.) tO). hie 
character, manifestations, or results of this disposition are often 
defined by qualifying genitives ; as, the spirit of meekness, faith, 
power, wisdom. (See Rom. viii. 2, 15 ; 1 Cor. iv. 21; 2 Cor. iv. 
13; Gal. vi.1; Eph.i.17; 2 Tim.i. 7.) At the same time it is 
to be carefully observed that these combinations are not mere 
periphrases for a faculty or disposition of man. The energy of 
the Holy Spirit is always assumed as behind and animating the 
disposition in its various manifestations. (See W. St on Rom. 
Vili. 4.) 

μιᾷ ψυχῇ : ‘with one mind.’ (Comp. ch. ii. 2, 20.) Ψυχὴ is 
the mind as the seat of sensation and desire. It is that part of 
the individual, personal life which receives its impressions on the 
one hand from the πνεῦμα, the higher divine life-principle, and on 
the other hand from the outer world. There are cases where the 
meanings of ψυχὴ and πνεῦμα approach very nearly, if indeed they 
are not practically synonymous. (See Lk. i. 46, 47; Jn. xi. 33, 
comp. xii. 27; Mt. xi. 29; τ Cor. xvi. 18.) But there must, never- 
theless, be recognised a general distinction between two sides of 
the one immaterial nature which stands in contrast with the body. 
Πνεῦμα expresses the conception of that nature more generally, 
being used both of the earthly and of the non-earthly spirit ; while 
ψυχὴ designates it on the side of the creature. Πνεῦμα, and not 
ψυχὴ, is the point of contact with the regenerating forces of the 
Holy Spirit, —the point from which the whole personality is 
moved Godward. Ψυχὴ must not be restricted to the principle 
of animal life; nor must it be distinguished from πνεῦμα as being 

D 


34 PHILIPPIANS [1. 27, 28 


alone subject to the dominion of sin, since πνεῦμα also is described 
as being subject to such dominion. See 2 Cor. vii.1 ; Eph. iv. 23 ; 
1 Cor. vii. 34 ; 1 Thess. v. 23, which imply that the πνεῦμα needs 
sanctification. Ψυχὴ is never, like πνεῦμα, used of God. (See 
W. St. on Rom. xi. 3.) Here μιᾷ ψυχῇ is not to be construed 
with στήκετε, but only with συναθλοῦντες. 

συναθλοῦντες TH πίστει τοῦ εὐαγγελίου : ‘striving together for the 
faith of the gospel.’ Σξυναθ. only here and iv. 3. The simple verb 
ἀθλεῖν occurs in 2 Tim. ii. 5, where it signifies ‘to contend in the 
games’; but in class. it is used also of contending in battle (Hdt. 
vii. 212; Hom. 72. vii. 453, xv. 30) ; of conflicts of cities (Plat. 
Tim. xix.c). The compounded σὺν does not mean with Paul (so 
Mey.), but in fellowship with each other. Mey. appeals to vs. 30, 
but there the apostle’s conflict is introduced as a new point. 
Others refer to iv. 3, but there μοί is written. Lightf., after 
Erasm., renders ‘in concert with the faith,’ faith being personi- 
fied. He cites x Cor. xii. 6; 2,Tim.i. 8; 3 Jn. 8. The ΠΌΤΕ 
fairly in point, but the two others are too much in dispute to be 
decisive. 

τῇ πίστει : Dat. ofinterest. The trustful and assured acceptamce 
of Jesus Christ as the Saviour from sin and the bestower of eternal 
life, is the clear sense of πίστις in the majority of N.T. passages. 
At the same time, there is an evident tendency of the subjective 
conception to become objective. The subjective principle of the 
new life is sometimes regarded objectively as a power. It is the 
sender or proclaimer of a message (Gal. iil. 2; Rom. x. 16. See 
Sieffert on Gal. 111. 2, and Bornemann on 1 Thess. ii. 13). It is 
something to be contended for (Jude 3). It is a precious gift to 
be obtained (2 Pet.i.1). It is something to be held fast (1 Tim. 
i. 19). Hence, though not equivalent to doctrina fidei (so Lightf. 
here and on Gal. iii. 23, and Sanday on Rom. i. 5), its meaning 
may go beyond that of the subjective energy to that of the faith 
as a rule of life (so Gal. iii. 23; 1 Tim. i. 19, iv. 1; and here). 
Thus Kl. explains πίστις here as “the new regimen of those who 
are Christ’s; the objectively new, obligatory way of life.” The 
phrase πίστις τοῦ εὐαγγελίου occurs nowhere else inN.T. Accord- 
ing to the common analogy of genitives with πίστις, εὐαγγελίου 
would be the objective genitive, ‘ faith in the gospel’; but accord- 
ing to the meaning of πίστις given above, it will be rather ‘the 
faith which belongs to the gospel,’ the rule of life which distinct- 
ively characterises it. 

28. πτυρόμενοι : ‘startled,’ ‘affrighted.’ Used of a frightened 
horse. 

ἐν μηδενὶ : As 2 Cor. vi. 3, vii. 9; Jas. i. 4. 

τῶν ἀντικειμένων : ‘your adversaries.’ (See Lk. xiii. 17, xxi. 15 ; 
1 Cor. xvi. 9; 2 Thess. ii. 4.) Of all kinds, Jewish and Pagan. 
Paul’s sufferings at Philippi had been caused by Gentiles. 


I. 28, 29] THE GIFT OF SUFFERING 35 


ἥτις : ‘seeing it is.’ ‘It,’ z.e. your unterrified attitude. The 
relative, with an explanatory force (as Eph. iii. 13; Col. ili. 5 ; 
Heb. x. 35), takes its gender from the predicate ἔνδειξις (Win. 
xxiv, 3), but agrees logically with μὴ πτυρόμενοι, etc. 

αὐτοῖς : whether they recognise the token or not. 

ἔνδειξις : ‘an evidence,’ ‘a proof.’ R.V., ‘evident token.’ The 
word is notcommonin N.T. (See Rom. ili. 25, 26; 2 Cor. viii. 24.) 

Comp. ἔνδειγμα : 2 Thess. i. 5. The verb ἐνδείκνυσθαι almost 
entirely confined to Paul. Lit., ‘a pointing out.’ Used in Attic 
law of a writ of indictment. 

ἀπωλείας : ‘destruction’ or ‘waste’ in general (as Mk. xiv. 4; 
Acts viii. 20) ; but specially and principally as here, the destruc- 
tion which consists in the loss of eternal life. The meaning is 
determined by the contrary σωτηρίας. The undaunted bearing of 
the Philippians in the face of opposition and persecution will be 
a token of destruction to their adversaries. It will show that their 
persecutors are powerless to thwart God’s work ; that their resist- 
ance is working out their own spiritual ruin ; that they are fighting 
against God, which can mean only destruction. 

ὑμῶν δε σωτηρίας : ‘but of your salvation.’ 


νμων, as αὶ ABC?P 17, 31, 47, Arm., Syr.?. 
υμιν in DKL Vulg., Cop., Basm., Goth., Eth. 


Future and eternal salvation as contrasted with ἀπωλείας. 

καὶ τοῦτο ἀπὸ θεοῦ: ‘and that from God.’ 

Kai has an ascensive force ; not only a token, but a token from 
God. 

Τοῦτο refers to the whole preceding statement ; viz. that an evi- 
dence of their enemies’ destruction and of their own salvation is 
furnished in their brave bearing. Not merely to ἀπωλείας and 
σωτηρίας, nor merely to ἔνδειξις (as Weiss). “It is not the token 
alone that is from God, but the token and what it points to” 
(Ead.). 

29. ori: ‘ because,’ justifies the preceding statement, but with 
special reference to σωτηρίᾳ. The evidence that your courage is 
a divine token of salvation lies in the fact that God has graciously 
bestowed on you, along with faith in Christ, the privilege of suffer- 
ing with him. For faith implies oneness with Christ, and therefore 
fellowship with his sufferings (Rom. viii. 17; 2 Thess. i. 5 ; 2 Tim. 
11. 12; Phil. iii. 10). That you suffer with Christ proves your union 
with him, and your union with Christ insures your salvation. 

Ὑμῖν has an emphatic position corresponding with that of ὑμῶν 
in vs. 28. 

ἐχαρίσθη : ‘it hath been granted’ ; freely bestowed as a gracious 
gift. The word is significant as opening the conception of suffer- 
ing from the Christian point of view. God rewards and indorses 
believers with the gift of suffering. In Paul’s bonds the Philip- 


36 PHILIPPIANS [1. 29, 30 


pians are partakers with him of grace (vs. 7. Comp. Acts v. 41). 
The aorist points to the original bestowment of the gift. (See 
Mt. v. 11; Mk. x. 38, 39.) 

τὸ ὑπὲρ Χριστοῦ : ‘on behalf of Christ.’ To belongs to πάσχειν, 
but the connection is broken by ov povoy .. . πιστεύειν, after which 
τὸ is repeated. With the whole passage, comp. 2 Thess. i. 4-10. 

30. ἔχοντες : ‘you having,’ or ‘so that you have.’ Character- 
ising ὅτι ὑμῖν éxap. . . . πάσχειν by the concrete case of their 
share in his own conflict. The participle agrees with ὑμεῖς, the 
logical subject of the entire clause. (Comp. similar construction in 
Eph. iii. 17, iv. 2; 2 Cor.i. 7; Col.ii.2.) Not with στήκετε (vs. 27), 
making ἥτις... πάσχειν a parenthesis, which would be clumsy. 

ἀγῶνα : ‘conflict.’ (Comp. συναθλοῦντες [ vs. 27] and Col. ii. 1 ; 
1 Thess. ii. 2; 1 Tim. vi. 12; Heb. xii 1.) The word applied 
originally to a contest in the arena, but used also of any struggle, 
outward or inward. For the latter see Col. ii. 1, and comp. 
Col. iv. 12. The reference here is to his experience in his first 
visit to Philippi, and to his latest experience in Rome. Their 
conflict is the same (τὸν αὐτὸν). They too have suffered persecu- 
tions, and for the same reason, and from the same adversaries. 

εἴδετε : ‘ ye saw,’ when I was with you at Philippi (Acts xvi. 19 ; 
1 Thess. ii. 2). They saw him scourged and imprisoned. 

viv ἀκούετε : ‘you now hear,’ as you read this letter, and listen 
to the account of Epaphroditus. 

ἐν ἐμοί : in my person. 


EXCURSUS 
BISHOPS AND DEACONS (PHIL. I. 1) 


It is evident that these words are related to the large and 
complicated question of primitive church polity. Do they denote 
official titles, or do they merely designate functions? What is 
their relation to the πρεσβύτεροι of the Acts and Pastoral Epistles Ὁ 
Were the offices of bishop and presbyter originally the same, and 
the names synonymous; or, was there an original distinction? 
Were the ἐπίσκοποι the direct successors of the apostles, distinct 
from the πρεσβύτεροι and higher ; or, was the episcopate a devel- 
opment from the presbyterate, formed by gradual elevation, and, 
finally, appropriating to itself the title which was originally com- 
mon to both, so that the New Testament knows only two orders 
—presbyters and deacons? What light is thrown on the ques- 
tion by the use of the terms here? 

To deal adequately with these questions, and with the volumin- 
ous discussion which they have called out, is manifestly impos- 
sible within the limits of an excursus, and the result of the most 
elaborate discussion cannot be decisive, owing to the imperfection 
of the sources at our disposal. 


I. 1] BISHOPS AND DEACONS_) . 37 


The theory of the original identity of bishops and presbyters 
has been a subject of controversy from a very early date. It was 
opposed to the Roman theory that bishops were the only success- 
ors of the apostles, and had from the beginning the divine com- 
mission to rule the church. ‘This latter theory was issued as a 
dogma by the Council of Trent, and the opposite view was de- 
clared heretical. The Roman dogma was rejected by the Calvin- 
ists and Lutherans. About the middle of the seventeenth century 
the battle over this question raged between the Anglican church 
on the one hand, and the English Puritans and the French Re- 
formers on the other. Dissatisfaction with the Roman view devel- 
oped as the discussion gradually shifted from a dogmatic to a 
historical basis. The present century has been prolific in attempts 
to solve the problem. Passing by those of Baur, Kist, Rothe, and 
Ritschl, the three most significant discussions from 1868 to 1883 
were those of Lightfoot in his essay on ‘The Christian Ministry ” 
in his Commentary on Philippians; Watch, in the Bampton Lect- 
ures for 1880 (Zhe Organisation of the Early Christian Church), 
and Harnack’s translation and development of Hatch’s work (2. 
Hatch; Die Gesellschaftsverfassung der christlichen Kirchen im 
Alterthum, tibers. von A. Harnack, 1883). Harnack’s views were 
further expounded in his Lehre der zwolf Apostel, 1884; his Re- 
view of Loening’s Gemeindeverfassung in Th. LZ., 1889, No. 17; 
in Gebhardt and Harnack’s Zexte und Untersuchungen, Bd. ii. 
Heft 1, 5, and in his Dogmengeschichie. 

Among the most important of the later discussions are: Lechler, 
Das apostolische und das nachapostolische Zeitalter, 3 Aufl., 1885 ; 
Kiihl, Die Gemeindeverfassung in der Pastoralbriefen, 1885; E. 
Loening, Die Gemeindeverfassung des Urchristenthums, 1889 ; 
F. Loofs, Die urchristiche Gemeindeverfassung, Stud. u. Krit., 
1890, Heft 4; Weizsacker, Das apostolische Zeitalter der christh- 
chen Kirche, 2 Aufl., 1892; Rud. Sohm, Kirchenrecht, Bd. i., 1892 ; 
Jean Réville, Zes Origines de 1’ Episcopat, 1894. Harnack is re- 
viewed by Professor Sanday in Zhe Expositor, 3d ser. vol. v. This 
and the succeeding volume contain an interesting group of papers 
by J. Rendel Harris, J. Macpherson, C. Gore, W. Milligan, G. 
Salmon, G. A. Simcox, and Professor Harnack. 

The Pauline epistles, omitting for the present the Pastorals, 
exhibit church polity in a rudimentary and fluid state in which 
official designations are not sharply defined, and the offices them- 
selves have not taken permanent and definite shape. The forms 
of polity are simple, founded upon local conditions, and not uni- 
form over the entire area of the church. The official designations, 
so far as they have arisen, are the natural and familiar expressions 
of particular functions. The terms often overlap or are confused, 
and a term in use in one part of the church does not appear in 
another part. An apostle, a bishop, a teacher, a deacon, are alike 


38 PHILIPPIANS [1.1 


“servants.” An overseer will be likely to be a presbyter, chosen 
on account of his age and experience. The overseers may be 
called προϊστάμενοι, ἡγούμενοι, or κυβερνήσεις. The assistants of 
an overseer may be known as διάκονοι or ἀντιλήμψεις. 

In short, we find within this circle an entire lack of uniformity 
in the terms applied to church officials, and a marked vagueness 
in their use. ‘lhe terms do not wholly explain themselves. Most 
of them are capable of a functional meaning ; and in most, if not 
all, cases of their occurrence, they may be explained as indicating 
the peculiar function of an official instead of his official title. This 
is the case in Acts xx. 28, which is so often cited as decisive of 
the original identity of presbyter and bishop. ᾿Ἐπίσκοπος occurs 
but once in these epistles (Phil. i. 1) ; διάκονος but once in an 
official sense (Phil. i. 1) ; προϊστάμενοι in Rom. xii. 8; 1 Thess. v. 
12, both times functionally. In 1 Cor. xii. 28, we have, besides 
apostles, prophets, and teachers, δυνάμεις, ἀντιλήμψεις, and κυβερνή- 
σεις, Which are abstract terms. Ἐπίσκοπος, διάκονος, προϊστάμενος, 
however they may be explained in any particular case, denote 
functions. Ἐπίσκοπος is an overseer; διάκονος a servant; προ- 
ἱστάμενος one who stands in front. Avaxovia is applied to religious 
and churchly ministries of all kinds. In Eph. iv. 11, 12, Paul 
says that Christ gave apostles, prophets, evangelists, pastors, and 
teachers to the work of διακονία for the perfecting of the saints. 
Paul and Apollos, Timothy and the secular ruler, are alike διάκονοι 
(τ Cor, 1. δ; τ Thess. iii. i23 Shomer Χ1Π:.24}- 

This unsettled state of the nomenclature corresponds with the 
fact that the primitive church was not a homogeneous body 
throughout Christendom. While the Jewish-Christian church as- 
sumed the connection of all local congregations with the mother- 
church at Jerusalem, there was no similar bond among the Gentile 
churches. Paul’s zdea/ was one body —the church, as the body 
of Christ, embracing all Christians of every nationality and social 
condition. He aspired to found a world-wide society, united 
neither by national tradition nor by common rites, but by a 
common faith and a common inspiration (1 Cor. x. 16, xii. 27; 
Rom. xii. 5; Eph. ii. 14-22). He speaks of “the church of 
xod ” (1 Cor. x. 32), and of “ the church " (1 Cor. xi. 23) Ηθ 
labored to hold the provincial churches together by his letters and 
messengers (1 Cor. xvi. 19; 2 Cor.i. 1). The boldness of his 
ideal, and his profound faith in the truth which he proclaimed, are 
all the more striking when the heterogeneous character of his 
churches is considered. (See a fine passage in Réville, Zes Ογί- 
gines de l’Episcopat, p. 115.) But the Gentile churches were 
united mainly through their relation to him, and all the churches 
were not within the sphere of his personal authority and work. 
Hence a collective Christendom was, as Holtzmann observes, “a 
genuine, zd@ea/ whole, identical with the body of the Lord, but not 


1.1] BISHOPS AND DEACONS 39 


an actual fact” (Pastoralbricfe, p. 193). The primitive Pauline 
church consisted of a number of little fraternities, composed 
largely of the poor and of the lower orders of society, holding 
their meetings in the private houses of some of their members. 

These communities were self-governing. The recognition of 
those who ministered to the congregations depended on the free 
choice of their members. At Corinth the household of Stephanas 
is commended by Paul to the church as being the earliest converts 
in Achaia, and as having voluntarily assumed the work of ministry 
to the saints (1 Cor. xvi. 15, 16). They were not regularly ap- 
pointed to office. The church is exhorted to render obedience 
to them, and also to every one who shall cooperate with them in 
their ministry. (See Pfleiderer, Paulinismus, 2 Aufl. p. 244.) 
Phoebe is not a deaconess, but a servant of the congregation, a 
patroness (προστάτις) of Paul and of others (Rom. xvi. 1, 2). The 
congregation exercises discipline and gives judgment (1 Cor. v. 
2-72 Cor. i. 6, 7, vil. 11,:12; Gal. vi. τ. In x Cor. v1.1, Paul 
recommends to the church to settle their differences by arbitra- 
tion. The alternative is litigation before heathen tribunals. There 
is, in short, no hint of any one ecclesiastical office endowed with 
independent authority. “ Paul,” to quote the words of Réville 
(Ρ. 99), “15 a sower of ideas, not a methodical administrator ; a 
despiser of ecclesiastical forms and of ritualism ; a mighty idealist 
filled with Christian enthusiasm, and who knew no other church 
government than that of Christ himself inspiring his disciples with 
the knowledge of what they ought to say and do.” 

It is thus evident that within the circle of the generally acknow- 
ledged Pauline epistles there is no trace of formally constituted 
church officers, except, apparently, in the Philippian epistle where 
bishops and deacons are addressed. Of this presently. Certain 
functions, however, are distinctly recognised by Paul as of divine 
institution in the church; and to these, necessarily, pertained a 
degree of prominence and influence in the congregation. 

The measure of this prominence and influence cannot be discussed here. 

Harnack (on Loening, 7%. ZZ., 1889) thinks that the pneumatic functions 


carried with them a “despotic” authority. (See Loening, Cemeinde- 
verfassung, ch. ii.; Loofs, Stud. u. Krit., 1890, p. 622.) 


Apostles, prophets, and teachers are declared by Paul to have 
been set by God in the church, and to these are added δυνάμεις, 
ἰάματα, ἀντιλήμψεις, κυβερνήσεις, γένη γλωσσῶν (1 Cor. xii. 28 ; 
comp. Eph. iv. 11, 12; and see Réville, p. 124 f.). 


I do not agree with Réville that the προϊστάμενοι of 1 Thess. v. 12 
(comp. Rom. xii. 8) are to be regarded as charismatically endowed. 


These do not represent offices resting on the appointment of 
the church. Their warrant is a special divine endowment or 
χάρισμα. Apostles, prophets, teachers, do not signify three official 


40 PHILIPPIANS {11 


grades in the church. The same man could be. both a prophet 
and a teacher. Whatever authority they possessed depended upon 
the church’s conviction that their charisma was of divine origin. 

In Paul’s two lists in 1 Cor. and Eph. of those who have 
been divinely commissioned in the church, neither ἐπίσκοποι, 
πρεσβύτεροι, nor διάκονοι appear. Nor do they appear anywhere 
in the acknowledged epistles of Paul with the exception of the 
greeting to the bishops and deacons in the Philippian letter. But 
in the Ignatian epistles (100-118 a.D.) we find a clear recognition 
of three orders of ministry, — bishops, presbyters, and deacons, — 
without which it is asserted that a church is not duly constituted 
(Zrav. iii.). This ministry is the centre of church order. The 
bishop is distinguished from the presbyter as representing a higher 
order. He is to be regarded as the Lord himself (ZA. vi.) ; to 
be obeyed as Christ and as God (7γαζ. ii.; Mag. ili.). Nothing 
is to be done without his consent (Podyc. iv.). He is to be fol- 
lowed as Jesus followed the Father (Smyvr. viii.). The presbyters 
are to preside after the likeness of the council of the apostles 
(Mag. vi.). Obedience is to. be rendered to them as to the 
apostles of Jesus Christ (7γαΐζ. 1i.). The deacons are to be 
respected as Jesus Christ (Zva/. iii.). In short, we have in 
these epistles the strongly marked beginnings of the monarchical 
episcopacy. 

See Lightf. Zenatius, vol. i. p. 389 ff. 


Somewhat earlier, in the Epistle of Clement to the Corinthians 
(about 96 a.p.), we find a greater variety of names applied to 
church functionaries. Besides ἐπίσκοποι, πρεσβύτεροι, and διάκονοι, 
occur the titles ἡγούμενοι, προηγούμενοι, πρεσβύτεροι καθεσταμένοι, 
and ἐλλόγιμοι ἄνδρες. But it is also distinctly asserted (xlii., xliv.) 
that the apostles appointed bishops and deacons to succeed them 
because they knew through Christ that strife would arise over the 
name of the bishop’s office (ἐπισκοπὴ). It is to be noticed that 
presbyters are not mentioned. 

Assuming the Philippian letter to have been written in 61 or 
62 A.D., we have less than forty years to the time of Clement’s 
epistle, and less than sixty to the time of the Ignatian letters. A 
great development has taken place in those years from the rudi- 
mentary conditions of church polity which we have been consid- 
ering. ‘This change did not come at a leap. Its elements must 
have been long in solution in the fluid and more democratic polity 
of the earlier time. The important and difficult question is the 
process by which the earlier and crude forms of polity developed 
into that system which is more than foreshadowed in Clement, 
sharply defined in Ignatius, and an accepted fact in Irenzus, 
Tertullian, and Cyprian. 

Here a difficulty arises as to our sources. Επίσκοποι and 


1.1] BISHOPS AND DEACONS 41 


διάκονοι appear in Phil.; ἐπίσκοποι, πρεσβύτεροι, and διάκονοι in 
the Pastoral Epistles; ἐπίσκοποι and πρεσβύτεροι in the Acts and 
τ Pet.; πρεσβύτεροι in Jas., 1 Pet., 2 and 3 Jn., and the Apoca- 
lypse. Harnack places the Pastorals in the middle of the second 
century ; Holtzmann, in its former half. The modern radical 
criticism of the Acts pushes its date forward into the second 
century (so Harnack) besides impugning its reliability on various 
grounds. 


See Weizsicker, Afost. ZA. 84 ff., 167 ff., 199 ff.; J. Jiingst, Dze Quellen 
der Apostelgeschichte, 1895; C. Clemen, Die Chronologie der paulinischen 
Briefe, 1893. 


The point to be observed is, that if the later date of the Pas- 
torals be accepted, they must be held to represent an advanced 
stage in the development toward the episcopal polity. Only let 
it be noted that Harnack’s date brings us within the circle of the 
Ignatian polity, and warrants us in expecting a far more precise 
use of terms in the three epistles than we actually find. There is 
a great distance between the episcopate of the Pastorals and that 
of the Ignatian epistles. (See Réville, p. 304.) 

If, on the other hand, the Pastorals be accepted as late products 
of Paul’s hand, and the Acts as composed within the first century, 
we have in these, along with the Epistle to the Philippians and 
the Catholic epistles, traces of the transition from the looser to 
the better defined polity. We have evidence of the existence of 
πρεσβύτεροι and ἐπίσκοποι in the church contemporary with Paul, 
without our being compelled to admit either that the ἐπίσκοπος 
was a regularly ordained ecclesiastical officer, or that πρεσβύτεροι 
and ἐπίσκοποι are synonymous. We have simply what we have 
reason to expect ; namely, that the three titles, ἐπίσκοποι, πρεσβύ- 
tepot, and διάκονοι, fall within the period of unsettled polity and 
loose nomenclature. ‘The fact that all these names may represent 
functions without designating official titles accords with this view. 
The process of crystallisation is going on. These different desig- 
nations emerge here and there in the church as local develop- 
ments, just as the terms προϊστάμενοι and ἡγούμενοι. It may be 
admitted that one term might, on occasion, have been loosely 
used for another ; but the recognised and habitual identification 
of ἐπίσκοποι and πρεσβύτεροι is precluded by the very assumption 
that these functions had assumed the character of regularly con- 
stituted church offices or orders of the ministry. If such had 
been the case, such looseness and confusion in the use of the 
names of formally appointed and recognised church officers is 
inconceivable. I think that the indications of the nature of 
church polity furnished by the Pastorals are far fewer and less 
definite than is often assumed, and much too scanty to warrant 
the positive inferences based upon them as to the later date and 


42 PHILIPPIANS [1.1 


the non-Pauline authorship of the letters. Harnack’s admission 
that older documents have been used in the composition of the 
Pastorals is an important concession, which makes against the 
theory of their testimony to a later stage of ecclesiastical polity. 

According to our view of the case, therefore, the mention of 
bishops and deacons in the Philippian letter furnishes no excep- 
tion to the statement that, within the circle of the acknowledged 
Pauline letters, there is no evidence of regularly constituted church 
officers representing distinct orders in the ministry. While the 
greeting to bishops and deacons is unique, it does not imply a 
polity differing substantially from that exhibited in 1 Cor. and 
1 Thess. It will be observed that the greeting is first to the 
church, and that the letter is addressed to the whole church. 
The special mention of the bishops and deacons by way of 
appendage is explained by the fact that the letter was called out 
by the pecuniary contribution of the Philippian church to Paul, 
of the collection and sending of which these functionaries would 
naturally have charge. It will also be noticed that the address 
assumes several ἐπίσκοποι, showing that the right of administration 
is possessed by no single one. 

At the same time, I think it must be granted with Harnack 
(L£xpositor, 3d ser. vol. v. p. 330) that while there cannot yet be 
any reference to an ecclesiastical authority over the church, the 
greeting of the Philippian letter implies a development of polity, 
in that the ministry has become divided into a higher and a lower 
ministry, and that its functionaries have obtained special designa- 
tions, so that the name διάκονος has received a narrower significa- 
tion, and designates a lower grade of ministry. The church at 
Philippi, at the time when Paul wrote this letter, had been in 
existence for ten years, and was the oldest Pauline church in 
Europe. It would not have been strange if its polity had become 
somewhat matured and more sharply defined, especially since it 
had suffered less distraction than other churches from conflicts 
with the Jews. 

The Didache or Teaching of the Twelve Apostles is most import- 
ant in its bearing on this subject. This brief church manual or 
directory, composed, probably in Syria, about 100 a.D., is a valu- 
able contribution to the literature of the period between the 
destruction of Jerusalem (a.D. 70) and the middle of the second 
century, the least-known period of church history. Its special 
value consists in marking the transition-period from the apostolic 
to the later church polity, in which the spiritual functions pass 
over from the apostles, prophets, and teachers to the local officers 
—the bishops and deacons. On the one side it is linked with the 
apostolic polity. The principal offices are still the charismatic 
offices. The apostle, who is to be received as the Lord (xi. 4), is 
a travelling missionary, and is not to remain for more than two 


I. 1] BISHOPS AND DEACONS 43 


days in a place (xi. 5). The prophet speaks by divine inspira- 
tion, and is not to be tried or proved, as if for appointment to 
his office (xi. 7). The prophets are the chief priests (xiii. 3). 
Comp. the emphasis on prophecy in 1 Cor. xii. 28, xiv. 1-37. 
Presbyters are not mentioned, though it does not follow from this 
that they did not exist in some of the Syro-Palestinian churches. 
(See Réville, p. 259.) But bishops and deacons are distinctly 
recognised. ‘They are local officers. They are elected to office 
(xv. 1), and on occasion they are to perform the ministry of the 
prophets and teachers (xv. 1); that is to say, the distinctively 
spiritual functions of the prophets may be discharged by them 
when the prophet is not present (xiil.). 

The testimony of the Didache, therefore, does not bear out the | 
original prominence which is claimed for the bishop. He is a 
secondary officer. He falls into the background behind the apos- 
tles, prophets, and teachers. The testimony, further, goes to show 
that spiritual functions did not originally attach to the offices of 
bishop and deacon. The evidence prior to the Didache that 
bishops or presbyters exercised such functions is very slight. 
The principal point insisted on is the laying on of hands (1 Tim. 
iv. 14 [see especially Loening, p. 75 ff.]) and the allusions to the 
gift of teaching or preaching as a qualification of presbyters or 
bishops (1 Tim. iii. 2, v. 17; Tit. τ. 9). As to ordination, it will 
be observed that the charisma described as imparted to Timothy 
is given through the medium of prophecy (διὰ προφητείας). As 
to teaching or preaching, 1 Tim. v. 17 shows that even if this 
function was occasionally exercised by presbyters or bishops, it 
did not pertain to the office as such. “The elders who rule well” 
are to be accounted worthy of double honor, especially those who 
labor in word and teaching, which clearly implies that there were 
elders who did not labor in word and teaching. 

In the Didache the spiritual functions belong, as in 1 Cor., to 
the prophets and teachers. The prophet is to discharge them 
when he is present. The prophet alone is allowed the free use of 
extemporary prayer (x. 7). In other respects the teacher is on 
the same footing with him. In the absence of the prophet or 
teacher, his ministry may be assumed by the bishops and deacons 
(xiii., xv. 1). In other words, the evidence of the Didache is to 
the effect that, as the special supernatural endowments subside, 
as the visits of the prophets become less frequent, the ministra- 
tions of worship devolve more and more upon the subordinate and 
local officers. 

This view is carried out by Harnack in his discussion of the 
Apostolical Ordinances or Canons (Tt. u. Unt. ii. 5). One por- 
tion of this formed a considerable part of the Didache. Two 
more parts, dating from forty to eighty years later than the 
Didache, mention the church officers in the following order: 


44 PHILIPPIANS [1.1 


bishop, presbyter, reader, deacon. The bishop is the shepherd 
of the flock. The presbyters, two in number, form the council of 
the bishop, oversee church discipline, and take part with the 
bishop in the celebration of the Eucharist. ‘The deacon has 
charge of the church charities, and keeps an eye upon disorderly 
members. The reader discharges the duties of an evangelist. 
He is a preacher or expounder, succeeding the evangelist, who 
belonged originally to the class of charismatically endowed teach- 
ers (comp. Eph. iv. 11) ; thus showing how formally appointed 
officials gradually succeeded to the functions of those who were 
supernaturally endowed by the Spirit. 

The office of the ἐπίσκοπος thus acquired a different character 
when it assumed the teaching function. This does not yet appear 
in Clement. The function is described as λειτουργεῖν and προσφέρ- 
ειν τὰ δῶρα (xliv.), yet the position is different from that of the 
Pauline period. With the passing away of the apostles, the 
authority of the bishop has increased. Its recognition no longer 
depends so exclusively on the approval of the members. Clement 
proclaims the apostolic origin and authority of the office, and at 
least suggests its life-long tenure (xliv.), a theory, as Harnack 
justly says, which has the appearance of being devised to meet 
an emergency; while some remnant of the earlier democratic 
sentiment is apparent in the ejection of the church authorities 
which was the occasion of Clement’s letter. 

The bishop’s office, therefore, was originally not spiritual but 
administrative. He had a local function in a particular commun- 
ity. The question as to the precise nature and range of this 
function cannot be answered decisively ; but some modern critics 
have, I think, narrowed it too much. Hatch, following in the 
track of Renan, Foucart, Liiders, Heinrici, and Weingarten, de- 
rives the term ἐπίσκοπος from the financial officers in the heathen 
municipalities or in the confraternities or guilds which were so 
common in the Roman Empire (see note on τῇ κατ᾽ οἶκον σου 
ἐκκλησίᾳ [Philem. 2]), and regards the original ἐπίσκοπος as 
simply a financial officer. 


Sanday justly remarks that the evidence, on this theory, is rather better 
for ἐπιμελητής than for ἐπίσκοπος (Lxpositor, 3d ser. v. p. 98). See also 
on this point, Réville, Les Origines de l’Episcopat, p. 153. The subject of 
the relations of the Christian official nomenclature to that of the heathen 
guilds is ably discussed by Loening, Gemeindeverfassung, pp. 12, 20, 64. 
See also Sohm, Kirchenrecht, p. 87, and Salmon, £xfositor, 3d ser. vi. 
Ρ. 18 ff. 


In favor of this view it is also urged that the earliest authorities 
concur in demanding that bishops should be free from covetous- 
ness. Thus the Didache requires that bishops and deacons shall 
be ἀφιλαργύρους (xv. 1). So in τ Tim. iii. 3, a bishop must be 
ἀφιλάργυρος, and a deacon (vs. 8) μὴ αἰσχροκερδὴς. It is also 


I 1] BISHOPS AND DEACONS 45 


claimed that Tit. i. 7 is to the same effect, the bishop being 
described as θεοῦ οἰκονόμος. It is assumed, in short, that such 
expressions were determined by the special temptations which 
attached to the financial function of the bishop. 

It seems to me quite possible to lay undue stress upon these 
indications. Without denying that the episcopal function included, 
and was possibly largely concerned with the financial interests of 
the church, it could not have been confined to these. It must 
have extended to the social relations of the community, to 
inspection of the performance of social duties, to guardianship 
of those rules and traditions which were the charter of the infant 
organisation, and to representation of the community in its rela- 
tions with other Christian churches or with the outside world. It — 
can hardly be supposed that, in associations distinctively moral 
and religious, one who bore the title of overseer should have 
been concerned only with the material side of church life. (See 
Réville, p. 306 ff.). 


Sohm, whose Kzrchenrecht is among the very latest and strongest con- 
tributions to this discussion, holds that, though the original character of 
the bishop’s office was administrative, the teaching function attached itself 
naturally to his duty of receiving and administering the offerings of the 
congregation presented at the celebration of the Eucharist. He claims 
that the episcopal office grew, primarily, out of this celebration, and that 
the bishop’s distribution of the offerings to the poor involved a cure of souls 
and the consequent necessity of teaching. See also Réville, pp. 178, 309. 


But though it cannot be shown that the Christian title ἐπίσκοπος 
was formally imitated from the Pagan official, we are not thereby 
compelled to deny entirely the influence of the Pagan nomenclat- 
ure in determining it. No doubt its adoption came about, in 
both cases, in the same natural way ; that is to say, just as sena- 
tus, and γερουσία, and πρεσβύτερος passed into official designa- 
tions through the natural association of authority with age, so 
ἐπίσκοπος would be almost inevitably the designation of an over- 
seer. ‘The term was not furnished by the gospel tradition ; it did 
not come from the Jewish synagogue, and it does not appear in 
Paul’s lists of those whom God has set in the church. The process 
of natural selection, however, would be helped by the familiar 
employment of the title in the clubs or guilds to designate func- 
tions analogous to those of the ecclesiastical administrator. (See 
the interesting remarks of Réville, p. 160 f.) The title can hardly, 
I think, be traced to the Old Testament. The usage there is 
predominantly functional. There are but two passages in the 
LXX where ἐπίσκοπος has any connection with religious worship 
(Num. iv. 16; 2 K. xi. 18). It is applied to God (Job xx. 29), 
as it is applied to Christ in the New Testament (1 Pet. ii. 25). It 
is used of officers in the army, and of overseers of workmen. The 
prevailing meaning of ἐπισκοπὴ is “ visitation,” for punishment, 


46 PHILIPPIANS [1.1 


inquisition, or numbering. In any case, little light can be thrown 
on the question by the derivation of the word, until we clearly 
understand the functions of the Christian officials. 

Into the complicated question of the origin of the presbyterate 
it is not necessary to enter. It may be remarked that modern 
critical opinion has largely abandoned the view maintained by 
Rothe, Baur, Lightfoot, Hatch, and others, that the original 
Christian church polity was an imitation of that of the syna- 
gogue. ‘This is largely due to the investigations of Schiirer into 
the Jewish church constitution. 


See Geschichte des jiidischen Volkes im Zeitalter Jesu Christi, 2 Aufl. 
Bd. ii., 1866, Eng. trans., 2d divis. vol. ii. p. 56 ff.; Die Gemeindeverfassung 
der Juden in Rom in der Kaiserzeit, 1879. 


The secular and religious authorities of the Jewish communities, 
at least in purely Jewish localities, are shown by Schiirer to have 
been the same (comp. Hatch, Lect. iii.),—a fact which is against 
the probability that the polity was directly transferred to the body 
of Christian believers. The prerogatives of the Jewish elders have 
nothing corresponding with them in extent in the Christian com- 
munity. Functions which emerge later in the Jewish-Christian 
communities of Palestine do not exist in the first Palestinian- 
Christian society. At the most, as Weizsacker observes, it could 
only be a question of borrowing a current name. The use of 
συναγωγὴ for a Christian assembly occurs but once in the New 
Testament, and that by James, whose strong Jewish affinities are 
familiar. The regular designation of the Christian assembly was 
ἐκκλησία. The Christian society regarded itself as the inaugurator, 
not of a new worship, not of an ecclesiastical organisation, but of 
a new society representing the beginnings of the kingdom of God 
on earth, the institutions of which would soon be definitely and 
permanently established by the return of the Son of Man in his 
glory. Such a society would not be satisfied with forming a 
separate synagogue merely, nor would the mere reading and 
exposition of the law and the prophets interpret their fresh 
Christian sentiment. 


See Holtzmann, Pastoralbriefe, p. 217. 


However they originated, in the Acts and the Pastoral Epistles 
presbyters appear as a factor of church government, forming a 
collective body in the congregation. Whatever may have been 
their original functions, in these documents the office of teaching 
pertains to both them and the bishops. (See τ Tim. ili. 2, v. 17; 
Tit. 1.. 9.) It is at this point that the tendency to confound and 
identify the two distinct offices reveals itself. It would be strange 
if the two were synonymous, and that two names should be given 
to the same functions. Yet Hatch (Lect. ii. p. 39, note) declares _ 


ΕἼ] BISHOPS AND DEACONS 47 


that this identity is so well established that it has been practically 
removed from the list of disputed questions. Such certainly is 
not the testimony of later critical discussion in which this question 
bears a prominent part. The reasons which make against the 
identity, moreover, are not trifling. Acts xx. 17, 28, which is so 
often urged as conclusive, proves absolutely nothing, or rather 
favors the opposite conclusion. Either it may be said that the 
word ἐπισκόπους is not titular, but expresses function, describing 
the body of presbyters generally as “‘ overseers” of the flock of 
God ; or that the ἐπίσκοποι regarded as officers are represented as 
belonging to the class of presbyters and appointed from their 
number, which does not imply the identification of the official 
titles. 

Bishops and deacons are habitually associated, while no mention 
of presbyters occurs along with them. It is a begging of the 
question to affirm that presbyters are not mentioned because they 
are identical with bishops. It cannot be proved for instance that 
there were not presbyters at Philippi when Paul wrote to that 
church ; and the probability is that if they had held a rank identi- 
cal with that of the bishops or equal with it, notice of them would 
not have been omitted. 

Turning to the Pastoral Epistles, in 1 Tim. iii. 1-13, we find the 
qualifications of bishops and deacons described, with no mention 
of presbyters. These are referred to in 1 Tim. v. 17-19, but in 
an entirely different connection, —-as worthy of a double mainten- 
ance, and not to be accused except on the testimony of two or 
three witnesses. In the Epistle of Clement (xlii.) the apostles are 
declared to have appointed bishops and deacons, not presbyters. 
Passing on to a later date (140?), the Shepherd of Hermas 
distinguishes bishops and deacons from presbyters (3 Vis. v. 1; 
Sim. ix. 27,2. Comp. 2 Vis.iv.2f; 3 Vis.i. 8, ix. 7; Mand. xi. 12). 

The testimony of Clement’s letter to the Corinthians is of spe- 
cial importance. It was written on behalf of the Roman church, 
rebuking the church at Corinth for ejecting its rulers from office. 
(See Lightf. Cem. i. p. 82.) The passages in point are in chs. i., 
ili., xxi., xlii., xliv., xlvii., liv., lvii. 

At first sight it appears as if Clement uses ἐπίσκοπος and πρεσβύ- 
Tepos aS Synonymous terms (see especially xliv., liv., lvii.) ; but in 
chs. i., xxi. the ἡγούμενοι and προηγούμενοι, by whom the bishops 
are meant, are placed side by side with πρεσβύτεροι as distinct, 
πρεσβύτεροι in both cases being contrasted with the young. In 
short, a more careful examination of the epistle goes to show 
that if the bishops are apparently designated as presbyters, it is 
because they have been chosen from the body of presbyters, and 
have retained that name even when they have ceased to hold 
office. For this reason the deceased bishops are called presby- 
ters (xliv.). As the presbyters are not designated by Clement 


48 PHILIPPIANS [1.1 


among those appointed by the apostles as their successors, it 
appears that “presbyter” signifies, not an office, but a class or 
estate. The presbyters are church members of long standing, 
who have approved themselves by their good works and pure 
character. The leaders of the church are to be sought among 
these ; but ‘‘the aged” as such are not described as office-bearers 
regularly appointed, but merely as a body of persons distinguished 
by ripe wisdom and approved character. Thus the exhortation 
“Submit yourselves to the presbyters ”’ (Ivii.) tallies with the same 
expression in 1 Pet. v. 5, where the younger are bidden to be 
subject unto the elder. ‘The office-bearers belong to the πρεσβύ- 
repo, but the πρεσβύτεροι as such are not office-bearers. ‘The 
bishops are reckoned as πρεσβύτεροι, not because the presbyter as 
such is a bishop, but because the bishop as such is a presbyter” 
(Sohm). The “appointed presbyters” (πρεσβύτεροι καθεσταμένοι 
[liv.]) are not the πρεσβύτεροι collectively, but a smaller circle 
within the πρεσβύτεροι. It is the bishops who are appointed (xlii., 
xliv.), and who count with the “aged” from whose ranks they 
proceed. ‘They are summoned to a specific official activity as 
ἐπίσκοποι. 

A linguistic usage of the second century which appears in 
Irenzus goes to confirm this view,—the use of πρεσβύτερος to 
denote the authorities for the tradition, the survivors of the pre- 
ceding generation (Iren. “ger. 11. 22, 5, iv. 27, 1, 2, 30, 14, 32,1, 
v. 5, 1, 33, 3, 36, 1)- (See Weizs., 4p. ZA. p. 618.) The bishops 
would therefore be called πρεσβύτεροι (/7/aer’. iii. 2, 1, 3, 1), in so 
far as they successively vouched for the tradition, and thus reached 
back into the preceding age. 

The qualifications which distinguish a presbyter are indicated 
at the close of Clement’s epistle in the description of the three 
commissioners from the Roman church who are the bearers of 
the letter. They are “old, members of the Roman church from 
youth, distinguished by their blameless life, believing, and sober” 
(Ixiii.). No official title is given them. 

To the same effect is the testimony of the Pastoral Epistles. 
1 Tim. iii. treats of the officers of the church, but only of bishops 
and deacons, concluding with the statement that this is the direc- 
tion concerning the ordering of the church as the house of God 
(vs. 14, 15). The offices are exhausted in the description of 
bishops and deacons. Nothing is said of presbyters until ch. v., 
where Timothy’s relations to individual members of the church 
are prescribed (v. 1) ; and in Tit. ii. 2 ff. these church members 
are classified as old men (πρεσβύτας), old women, younger men, 
and servants. Similarly, in 1 Pet. v. 1, the apostle describes him- 
self as a “fellow-elder” (συνπρεσβύτερος) ; and the church is 
divided into elders who feed the flock of God, and the younger 
(νεώτεροι) who are to be subject to the elders. In 1 Tim. v. 17 


I. 1] BISHOPS AND DEACONS 49 


mention is made of “elders who rule well”’ (ot καλῶς προεστῶτες 
πρεσβύτεροι). Assuming that elders had an official position iden- 
tical with that of bishops, a distinction between two classes of 
bishops would be implied, — those who rule well and those who 
do not. Whereas the distinction is obviously between old and 
honored church members collectively considered, forming the 
presbyterial body, and certain of their number who are worthy 
to be appointed as overseers. All of the presbyters do not fulfil 
equally well the duty of ruling. All are not alike worthy to be 
chosen as overseers. Only those are to be accounted worthy of 
double honor who have approved themselves as presbyters to be 
worthy of the position of ἐπίσκοποι. The following statement in 
vs. 19 refers to the rights of the presbyters generally. The pres-. 
byters as such are not invested with office. There is no formal 
act which constitutes an elder ora well-ruling elder. The bishops 
are reckoned among the elders, but the elders as such are not 
officers. 

Thus are explained the allusions to “appointed” elders. Titus 
(Tit. i. 5) is enjoined to appoint elders in the Cretan churches, 
men who shall be blameless, husbands of one wife, having believ- 
ing children who are free from scandal. Then follows, ‘or the 
bishop (τὸν ἐπίσκοπον) must be blameless,” etc. The qualifica- 
tions of the elders are thus fixed by those of the bishop ; and the 
injunction is to appoint elders to the position of overseers, for 
the overseers must have the qualifications of approved presbyters. 
Similarly the ordination of presbyters, in Acts xiv. 23, is to be 
understood as setting apart elders to the position of superin- 
tendents. 

The ecclesiastical eldership is, therefore, not identical with the 
episcopate, though in the unsettled state of ecclesiastical nomen- 
clature, the names might, on occasion, be interchanged, and though, 
in the later stage of ecclesiastical development, the assumption of 
the teaching function by both classes, through the gradual sub- 
sidence of charismatic endowments, tends to confuse them. The 
presbyterate denotes an honorable and influential estate in the 
church on the ground of age, duration of church membership, 
and approved character. Only bishops are “‘appointed.’”’ There 
is no appointment to the presbyterate. 

The special office of deacon occurs in the Pastorals, and nowhere 
else in the writings attributed to Paul; for the deacons in Phil. i. 1 
do not stand for an ecclesiastical office, although, as has been 
already observed, they mark an advance towards it. ‘They appear 
as regular church officers in Clement and in the Didache, and 
Clement asserts their apostolic appointment. The testimony does 
not bear out the older view of the origin of the diaconate in the 
appointment of the seven (Acts vi. 1-6). The terms διάκονος and 
«διακονία are common expressions of service, either to Christ or to 

E 


50 PHILIPPIANS [1.1 


others. Paul habitually uses them in this way, applying them to 
his own ministry and to that of his associates. Avaxovia is applied 
to the service of the apostles (Acts 1. 25, vi. 4), and διάκονοι is 
used of the ministers of Satan in 2 Cor. xi. 15. The appoint- 
ment of the seven grew out of a special emergency, and was 
made for a particular service ; and the resemblances are not close 
between the duties and qualifications of deacons as detailed in 
1 Tim. and those of the seven. The word διάκονος does not 
occur at all in the Acts; and when Paul and Barnabas brought 
the contribution for the poor saints to Jerusalem, they handed it 
over to the elders. 

Our evidence on this question is, at best, incomplete. Loening 
does not put the case too strongly when he describes the sources 
from which alone our knowledge can be drawn as Jickenhaft. 
Such as the evidence is, however, it seems to be fatal alike to the 
Roman and to the Presbyterian theory of an apostolic norm of 
church polity. There can be no doubt that discussions of this 
subject have too often.been unduly influenced by ecclesiastical 
preconceptions, and conclusions reached in which the wish was 
father to the thought. To be able successfully to vindicate for 
any system of ecclesiastical polity an apostolic origin and sanction 
is to put into the hands of its representatives a tremendous lever. 
Investigation of this subject, if it is to lead to the truth, must be 
conducted on purely historical grounds apart from all dogmatic or 
ecclesiastical prepossessions. In the conduct of such investiga- 
tions we shall do well to heed the caution conveyed in the words 
of Réville. ‘The prolonged and minute analysis of the smallest 
texts, in which one thinks to find an echo of the first Christian 
ecclesiastical organisation, tends to a forcing of the meaning and 
to an exaggeration of the value of each trace that we discover ; 
because we cannot be satisfied without reconstructing a complete 
organism, in which all the parts are logically related and mutually 
adjusted like the wheels of a perfect machine. Not only is the 
mechanism not complete, but, properly speaking, there is yet no 
regular mechanism. The organisation of these humble communi- 
ties which were still unnoticed by the great world, or noticed only 
to be despised, was not the result of sage legislative labor... . 
The functions, the dignities, the spiritual magistracies of primitive 
Christianity emerge little by little by organic growth” (Les Origines 
de l’ Episcopat, p. 330). 

The forms of church polity were gradual evolutions from primi- 
tive, simple, crude modes of organisation shaped by existing 
conditions. Official titles were naturally suggested by official 
functions. The church was not one body, but only an aggregate 
of local communities ; and the features of organisation and gov- 
ernment in any single community and ‘the official titles which 
their administrators bore were not the same in other communities. 


I. 13] NOTE ON πραιτωρίῳ 51 


Nothing is clearer than the absence of any uniform system of 
ecclesiastical nomenclature in the church of the Pauline period. 
We see at first a loose, democratic organisation, in which leader- 
ship depends upon spiritual endowment and its recognition by the 
spiritual community. The early enthusiasm gradually passes away. 
The apostle, prophet, and teacher recede, formal election takes 
the place of general recognition of the gifts of prophecy or 
tongues ; the spiritual functions pass from the charismatic leaders 
to the administrative functionaries; gradually the official polity 
crystallises as the church grows stronger and its intercourse with 
the outside world and among its several branches extends. The 
tendency observable in the history of all organisations towards . 
the concentration of authority in fewer hands develops ; and by 
the time the first half of the second century is reached, the epis- 
copal polity has defined itself in the Ignatian letters, and the tide 
is setting towards the monarchical episcopacy. 


NOTE ON πραιτωρίῳ (1. 13) 


It is impossible to determine with certainty the place of Paul’s confinement 
in Rome. The explanations of πραιτώριον ( pretorium) are the following: 


I. The prztorian camp at the Porta Viminalis (Kl., Lips., Mey., Weiss, 
Hack.). 

2. The whole pretorian camp whether within or without the city (Ellic.). 

3. The pretorian barracks attached to the Neronian palace (Alf., Con. H., 
Weizs. [42. Zeit.], O. Holtzmann [Meutestamentliche Zeitgeschichte], 
Merivale [Ast. Rom. under the Emp.]). 

4. The pretorian guard (Lightf., Lewin, De W., Beet, Mangold [Bleek’s 
Einl.)). 


I do not think that Lightf.’s note (Comm. p. 99) has ever been successfully 
answered or his conclusion shaken. He has shown that there is no sufficient 
authority for applying the term ‘ preetorium’ to the imperial residence on the 
Palatine; and his view on this point is confirmed by Mommsen (émisches 
Staatsrecht, 3 Aufl. ii. p. 807). After stating that the word was used to 
denote the headquarters of the emperor, Mommsen goes on to argue against 
Hirschfeld’s assertion that the imperial palace itself was regarded as a camp. 
“ Against this,” he says, “are both tradition and theory. When the emperor 
was absent from Rome he was‘ in praetorio,’ and so Juvenal (iv. 34) rightly 
calls Domitian’s Albanum a camp. But the palace in the city is never called 
so; for such a designation would be against the existence of the Augustan 
principate, and Augustus’ tendency to conceal military domination.” 

Livy, xxvi. 15, xxx. 5; Tac. Hist. i. 20, ii. 11, iv. 46; Suet. Mero, 9; Pliny, 
N. H. xxv. 2, 6, with the testimony furnished by inscriptions, are decisive for 
the use of ‘ przetorium’ to denote the pretorian guard. 

So Marquardt (Rémische Staatsverwaltung, ii. pp. 460, 464), and Mommsen 


52 PHILIPPIANS [11. 1-4 


(Rom. Staatsr. ii. 865, 3 Aufl.), who says of the pratorian troops: “Their 
collective designation was fraeforium, as appears in the expressions pracfectus 
in praetorio, mittere ex praetorio, decedere in praetorio. The name of the 
emperor was not usually added, though Vespasian speaks of the soldiers who 
have served zz praetorio meo (Corp. I. Lat. p. 583).” 

Professor Ramsay (St. Paul, the Traveller and the Roman Citizen, p. 357) 
says that ‘preetorium’ means “the whole body of persons connected with the 
sitting in judgment—the supreme imperial court; doubtless in this case the 
prefect or both prefects of the pretorian guard, representing the emperor in 
his capacity as the fountain of justice, together with the assessors and high 
officers of the court.” For this explanation he cites the authority of Mommsen, 
but without giving any references. I must confess that this definition of 
‘ preetorium’ is new to me, and I am unable to reconcile it with Mommsen’s 
statements. Mommsen says (Adm. Staatsr. 11. p. 959) that the first emper- 
ors, for the most part, personally conducted the imperial court. On p. 972 he 
says: “From the penal sentences of the provincial governors, the appeal, 
about the middle of the third century, lay to the preetorian prefects; and, as 
accused persons from the provinces, sent to Rome for judgment, were, in the 
earlier period, committed to the przetorian prefects as guards (here he cites 
the case of St. Paul), so, 27 che third century, the judgment of such persons 
passed over to them.” 

The unquestionable fact that ‘ praetorium’ was used to denote the preetorian 
guard makes it unnecessary to assume that the apostle in this passage refers 
to any place, and furnishes a simple explanation and one entirely consistent 
with the narrative in Acts xxviii. Paul was permitted to reside in his private 
lodging under the custody of a prztorian soldier. As the soldiers would 
naturally relieve each other in this duty, it would not be very long before Paul 
could say, as he does here, that the entire body of the praetorians had become 
aware that the imprisonment was for Christ’s sake. This explanation, more- 
over, agrees with καὶ τοῖς λοιποῖς πᾶσιν, which, on the other interpretations, is 
exceedingly awkward. 


II. 1-4. EXHORTATION TO UNANIMITY, LOVE, AND 
HUMILITY 


If therefore there is any power of exhortation in your experience. 
as Christians; if your mutual love affords you any consolation ; 
if you are in true fellowship with the Spirit of God; if there are 
any tender mercies and compassions in your hearts —I beseech 
you to complete my joy by your unanimity and your love to each 
other. Do not act from a spirit of faction or vainglory, but each 
of you account his brother as better than himself, and study his 
interests in preference to your own. 


IT. 1] EXHORTATION TO UNANIMITY, LOVE, ETC. 53 


1. εἴτις οὖν παράκλησις ἐν Χριστῷ : ‘if there be any exhortation 
in Christ.’ 

The particular connection of οὖν is clearly with i. 27, ἥτις... 
ev ἐμοί being a digression, though not parenthetical. The main 
element of πολιτεύεσθε is brave standing for the gospel in a spirit 
of concord. It is this which is taken up and expanded in the 
opening of this chapter. ‘I have exhorted you to stand fast in 
one spirit; to strive with one mind for the faith of the gospel, 
unterrified by your adversaries. Zherefore complete my joy by 
being of one accord and avoiding faction and vainglory.’ Out of 
this appeal grows, logically, the exhortation to humility, without 
which such unanimity cannot be maintained. The exhortation 
opens in the form of an adjuration. The rapid succession and 
variety of the appeals and the repetition of εἴ τις are peculiarly 
impressive. Says Chrys.: πῶς λιπαρῶς, σφοδρῶς, μετὰ συμπαθείας 
πολλῆς! ‘How earnestly, how vehemently, with how much 
sympathy !” 

This earnestness was largely due to the fact that Paul was dis- 
turbed by reports of internal dissensions in the Philippian church. 
This is indicated not only by his words here, but by his moving 
appeal to the example of Christ; his admonition to do all things 
without murmurings and disputings (vs. 14); his entreaty of 
Euodia and Syntyche (iv. 2) ; his exhortation to moderation or 
forbearance (iv. 5) ; and his reference to the peace of God (iv. 7). 

The appeal is upon four grounds. ‘The first and third set forth 
objective principles of Christian life ; the second and fourth, sub- 
jective principles. The appeal is not to what was demanded by 
the readers’ personal relations to Paul. So Chrys. “If ye wish 
to give me any comfort in my trials, and encouragement in Christ ; 
if you have sympathy with me in my sufferings,” etc. So the Gk. 
Fathers generally. It is the Christian experience of the Philippians 
that is appealed to. ‘I exhort you by those feelings of which, as 
Christians, you are conscious.’ 

παράκλησις ἐν Χριστῷ : If the fact of your being in Christ has 
any power to exhort you to brotherly concord. (Comp. 1 Cor. 
ΧΙ]. 12-27; Eph. iv. 15, 16.) 

Παράκλησις from παρακαλεῖν, ‘to call to one’s side’ for help, 
counsel, etc. Thus παράκλητος, ‘an advocate,’ is one who is 
called in to plead another’s cause. With this primary sense are 
associated the ideas of entreaty, exhortation, and consolation. In 
the sense of ‘entreaty,’ the noun appears in N.T. only in 2 Cor. 
vill. 4, but the verb is common. (See Mt. viii. 34, xiv. 36; Mk. 
i. 40, etc.) As ‘consolation’ or ‘comfort,’ the noun, Lk. ii. 25, 
Vic24 > 2. Cof. ἢ vit: 4; the verb, 2 Gor: i:..4;. 6; vil. ὅς As 
‘exhortation’ or ‘counsel,’ the noun, Acts xiii. 15 ; Rom. xii. 8; 
Heb. xili. 22 ; the verb, Acts ii. 40, xi. 23 ; Rom. xii. 8; Tit. ii. 15. 
The last sense is the usual one in Paul. 


54 PHILIPPIANS [ΣΠ 12 


παραμύθιον : ‘persuasion.’ Only here, but the earlier form παρα- 
μυθία, τ Cor. xiv. 2. Class. ‘ address,’ ‘ exhortation’ (Plat. Zeg. vi. 
773 E, ix. 880 A); ‘assuagement’ or ‘abatement’ (Soph. “ic. 
130; Plat. Huthyd. 272 B). Hence ‘consolation’ (Plat. Repud. 
329 E). See παρακαλεῖν and παραμυθεῖσθαι together, 1 Thess. 11. 11. 
Here, the form which παράκλησις assumes —a friendly, mild per- 
suasion, “ not pedagogic or judicial” (KI.). Paul means, there- 
fore, ‘if love has any persuasive power to move you to concord.’ 

κοινωνία πνεύματος : ‘fellowship of the Spirit.” (Comp. Rom. 
xv. 30.) For κοινωνία, see oni. 5. ‘The exact phrase only here, 
and κοιν. with wv. only 2 Cor. xiii. 13. 

Πνεῦμα is the Holy Spirit. The meaning is ‘ fellowship with the 
Holy Spirit,’ not ‘fellowship of spirits among themselves.’ The 
genitive is the genitive of that of which one partakes. So habitu- 
ally by Paul (1 Cor. i. Ὁ, x. 16; 2 Cor. vill. 4, xiii. τῷ; Eph. iii. 9 ; 
Phil. iii. 10). Not ‘the fellowship which the Spirit imparts,’ which 
would be grammatical, but contrary to N.T. usage. Hence Paul 
means, ‘if you are partakers of the Holy Spirit and his gifts and 
influences.’ 

εἴ τις σπλάγχνα Kal οἰκτιρμοί: ‘if any tender mercies and com- 
passions.’ 

τις σπλαγχνα with s ABCDFGKLP and nearly all the verss. is over- 
whelmingly supported agt. τινα in a few minusc., Clem., Chrys., Thdrt., 


Theoph. But the attested reading is a manifest solecism, — either a tran- 
scriber’s error, or a hasty repetition of τις. 


For σπλάγχνα, see on i. 8, and comp. Philem. 7, 12, 20. The 
exact phrase σπλ. καὶ oik. only here, but see Jas. v. 11 ; Col. iii. 12. 

Σπλάγχνα is the organ or seat of compassionate emotion: 
οἰκτιρμοί are the emotions themselves. (See Schmidt, Syzon. 
143, 4.) 

2. πληρώσατέ pov τὴν χαρὰν : ‘fulfil’ or ‘ fill ye up my joy.’ 

Πληρ., in its original sense, ‘to make full’; the joy regarded 
as a measure to be filled. (Comp. Jn. iii. 29, xv. 11, xXvil. 13 ; 
2 Cor. κι δ.) 

Mov before τὴν χαρὰν implies no special emphasis. (See Col. 
iv. 18; Philem. 20; and often elsewhere.) (Win. xxii.) 

iva: not ‘in order that,’ but to be taken with ‘I bid’ or ‘ exhort,’ 
which is implied in the imperat. πληρώσατε, and indicating the 
purport of the bidding. (See oni. 9.) 


Mey. maintains the telic sense, and Lightf. renders ‘so as to,’ but refers 
to i. 9, where he explains ἕνα as signifying purport. 


τὸ αὐτὸ φρονῆτε: ‘be of the same mind.’ (Comp. Rom. xii. τό, 
xv. 5; 2 Cor. xiii. 11; Phil.iv. 2.) For φρονῆτε, see oni. 7. This 
more general expression is defined by the following two, not three, 
separate clauses. 


II. 2, 3] - SHUN STRIFE AND VAINGLORYING 55 


τὴν αὐτὴν ἀγάπην ἔχοντες : ‘having the same love.’ Mutual love, 
and the one love of God in all. (See Col. i. 4; 1 Thess. iii. 12 ; 
2 Thess. i. 3; 1 Jn. iv. 12-16.) 

σύνψυχοι τὸ ἕν φρονοῦντες : ‘with harmony of soul cherishing 
the one sentiment.’ This second participial clause points back to 
τὸ αὐτὸ φρονῆτε, and is illustrated by σύνψυχοι, which marks the 
common disposition under the influence of which unanimity of 
sentiment is to be attained. So Mey., Alf., Ellic., Weiss, Beet. 


Others, as WH., ΚΙ., Lightf., De W., Lips., Weizs., take σύνψ. and τὸ ὃν 
pov. as separate predicates. ‘The attempted distinctions between τὸ αὐτὸ 
and τὸ ἕν are hypercritical. Thus, τὸ ἕν, agreement of mind and will; τὸ 
αὐτὸ, agreement in doctrine (Calov., Am E., Rosenm.); τὸ αὐτὸ, unanimity 
in general; τὸ ἕν, the one concrete object of their striving (Weiss). The 
two are practically synonymous. Wetstein cites λέγοντες Ev καὶ ταὐτὸ 
(Polyb. v. 441), and ἕν καὶ ταὐτὸ φρονοῦντες (Aristid. Concord. Rhodior. 
569). This is the only occurrence of σύνψυχος in Bib. Gk. (Comp. ἰσόψυ- 
χος, VS. 20.) 

For To ev dpov. 8* AC 17, Vulg., Goth., read To αὐτο ¢pov., a mechanical 
conformation to To auto φρονητε. 


The same exhortation to concord is now put negatively, showing 
what the requirement excludes. 


3. μηδὲν κατ᾽ ἐριθίαν μηδὲ κατὰ κενοδοξίαν : ‘being in nothing 
factiously or vaingloriously minded.’ (Comp. Ign. PAz/ad. 1., viii.) 
Supply φρονοῦντες from vs. 2, which is better than ποιοῦντες or 
πράσσοντες (A.V.; R.V.), since the thought is on the line of 
moral disposition rather than of doing. For the suppression 
of the verb, comp. Gal. v. 13; 2 Cor. ix. 6; Mt. xxvi. 5. 

ἐριθίαν : see On 1. 17. 

κατὰ : ‘by way of’; marking the rule or principle according to 
which something is done. (See Jn. ii. 6; Rom. ii. 2, xi. 21; 
Win. xlix.) 

κενοδοξίαν : ‘vainglory.’ Only here in N.T., but comp. LXX; 
Sap. xiv. 14; g Macc. ii. 15, vill. 18; and κενοδοξῶν (4 Macc. v. 
9) ; also κενόδοξοι (Gal. v. 26). Primarily, ‘vain opinion,’ ‘ error,’ 
as Ign. Magn. xi., ἄγκιστρα τῆς κενοδοξίας. (See on δόξα, i. 11.) 
A vain conceit of possessing a rightful claim to honor. Suidas 
defines, ‘any vain thinking about one’s self.’ It implies a contrast 
with the state of mind which seeks the true glory of God, as ch. i. 
26. Its object is vain and fleshly — something which imparts only 
a‘superficial glitter in the eyes of the worldly-minded. In Gal. 
v. 26, κενόδοξοι is further defined by ἀλλήλους προκαλούμενοι, ἀλλή- 
λοις φθονοῦντες. The temptation to this fault would arise, on the 
Jewish side, from the conceit of an exclusive divine call, privilege, 
and prerogative, and an exaggerated estimate of circumcision and 
the law (Rom. iii. 1, ix. 4). Against these the Philippians are 
warned in ch. iii. On the Gentile side the temptation would lie 


ee aan a 


56 PHILIPPIANS [11. 3,4 


in the conceit of a profound gnosis, and in their self-esteem grow- 
ing out of their call and the rejection of the Jews. Paul deals 
with this in Rom. xi. 20-25. They might also be tempted by the 
fancy of their own superior culture and breadth of view to despise 
the scruples of weak brethren. (See Rom. xiv. ; 1 Cor. viii.) 

τῇ ταπεινοφροσύνῃ : ‘in lowliness of mind.’ In class. Gk. ταπεινὸς 
usually implies meanness of condition ; lowness of rank ; abject- 
ness. At best the classical conception is only modesty, absence 
of assumption, an element of worldly wisdom, and in no sense 
opposed to self-righteousness. The word ταπεινοφροσύνη is an 
outgrowth of the gospel. It does not appear before the Christian 
era. ‘The virtue itself is founded in a correct estimate of actual 
littleness conjoined with a sense of sinfulness. It regards man not 
only with reference to God, but also with reference to his fellow- 
men, as here. The article τῇ probably denotes the virtue consid- 
ered abstractly or generically. (Comp. Rom. xii. τὸ ff.) It may, 
however, be used possessively, ‘your lowliness’ (Lightf.), or as 
indicating the dve lowliness which should influence each (Ellic.). 

ἀλλήλους ἡγούμενοι ὑπερέχοντας ἑαυτῶν : ‘each counting other 
better than himself.” (Comp. Rom. xii. 10.) ἩἩγεῖσθαι implies 
a more conscious, a surer judgment, resting on more careful weigh- 
ing of the facts, than νομίζειν. (See Schmidt, Syzon. 105, 4} 70, 
I, 3) 7+) 

Ὑπερέχειν with genit. not elsewhere in Paul. (Comp. iv. 7; 
Rom. xiii. 1.) 


B reads Tous with vrepexovras. DFG umepexorres. 


4. ἕκωστοι σκοποῦντες ---- ἕκαστοι : 


Ist εκαστοι, as ABFG 17, Vulg.; s CDKLP, Goth., Cop., Arm., Syr.¥t, 
read εκαστος, WH. marg. 2d εκαστοι, as δαὶ ABCY%! Ds P 17, 31, 47, Cop.; 
KL, Goth., Syr.u, Arm., read εκαστος. 

For σκοπουντες L with a few Fath. reads σκοπειτε. 


σκοποῦντες : ‘looking.’ For this use of the participle instead of 
the imperative, comp. Rom. xii. 9; Heb. xiii. 5. It forms an 
expansion of the previous words. Σκοπεῖν is ‘ to look attentively’ ; 
to fix the attention upon a thing with an interest init. (See Rom. 
xvi. 17; 2 Cor. iv. 18; Gal. vi. 1; Phil. iii. 17.) Hence, often, 
‘to aim at.’ (Comp. σκοπὸν, 111. 14.) Schmidt defines : “ to direct 
one’s attention upon a thing, either in order to obtain it, or because 
one has a peculiar interest in it, or a duty to fulfil towards it. Also 
to have an eye to with a view of forming a right judgment” (Syzon. 
11, 12). 

ἀλλὰ kai: Καὶ, ‘also,’ is inserted because Paul would not have it 
understood that one is to pay no attention to his own affairs. 


ΝΈΑ 17 join 2d εκαστοι with rovr. φρον. following. The previous 
sentence would therefore end with erepwy, 


II. 5, 6] CHRIST THE EXAMPLE OF HUMILITY 57 


Humility is urged because it is necessary to concord, as κενοδοξία 
is fatal to concord. For the supreme example and illustration of 
this virtue, the readers are now pointed to Jesus Christ. (Comp. 
Rom. xv. 3; 2 Cor. viii. g; 1 Pet. ii. 21, and the striking parallel 
in Clem. ad Cor. xvi.) 


5-8. Cherish the disposition which dwelt in Christ Jesus. For 
he, though he existed from eternity in a state of equality with God, 
did not regard that divine condition of being as one might regard a 
prize to be eagerly grasped, but laid it aside, and took the form of 
a bondservant, having been made in the likeness of men: and 
having been thus found in fashion as a man, he humbled himself 
by becoming obedient to God even so far as to suffer death, yea, 
the ignominious death of the cross. 


On the whole passage, see note at the end of this chapter. Pp: 7S 


5. τοῦτο φρονεῖτε ἐν ὑμῖν ὃ Kal ἐν Χριστῷ Ἰησοῦ : ‘have this mind 
in you which was also in Christ Jesus.’ 


πὸ DFGKLP, Goth., Syr.?, insert yap after rovro; x* ABC 17, 37, Cop., 
Arm., AEth., omit yap; φρονειτε with s ABC* DFG 67**, Vulg., Syr.utr; 
C3 KLP, Cop., Arm., Goth., read φρονεισθω. 


ἐν ὑμῖν : ‘in you’; not ‘among you,’ which is precluded by the 
following ἐν XI. (Comp. Mt. lii. 9, ix. 3, 21.) "Ev ὑμῖν with 
the active φρονεῖτε presents no difficulty if it is remembered that 
φρονεῖν signifies the general mental attitude or disposition. (See 
on i. 7.) 

ἐν XI: There was a slight difference of opinion as to whether 
that which is commended to imitation is Christ’s ταπεινοφροσύνη 
(so the Gk. Fathers), or his self-denying zeal for the salvation of 
others (Aug. Ans.). It is both combined. They are represented 
respectively by ἐταπείνωσεν (vs. 8) and ἐκένωσεν (vs. 7). So Beng., 
‘qui non sua quaesiverit sed se ipsum demiserit.” 

6. os: Refers to Christ as the subject. It is the subject of both 
classes of statements which follow, — those predicated of Christ’s 
preincarnate state and of his human condition. The immediate 
context defines the specific reference in each case. si 

ἐν μορφῇ θεοῦ : ‘in the form of God.’ ‘Form’ is an inadequate 
rendering of μορφὴ, but our language affords no better word. By 
‘form’ is commonly understood ‘shape,’ ‘sensible appearance.’ 
So of Christ’s human form (Mk. xvi. 12). But’ the word in this 
sense cannot be applied to God. Μορφὴ here means that expres- 
sion of being which is identified with the essential nature and 


58 PHILIPPIANS [11. 6 


character of God, and which reveals it. This expression of God 
cannot be conceived by us, though it may be conceived and 
apprehended by pure spiritual intelligences. 

ὑπάρχων : ‘subsisting’ or ‘ though he subsisted.’ Originally ‘ to 
begin,’ ‘make a beginning’ ; thence ‘ to come forth’ ; ‘ be at hand’ ; 
‘be in existence.’ It is sometimes claimed that ὑπάρχειν, as dis- 
tinguished from εἶναι, implies a reference to an antecedent condi- 
tion. Thus R.V. marg. ‘ being originally.’ Suidas, = προεῖναι. That 
it does so in some cases is true. (See Thuc. iv. 18, vi. 86; Hdt. 
11. 15; Dem. iil. 15, v. 13.) Comp. the meaning ‘to be taken 
for granted’ (Plat. Symp. τοῦ D; Zim. 30 C). On the other 
hand, it sometimes denotes a present as related to a future con- 
dition. (See Hdt. vii. 144; Thue. ii. 64; and the meaning ‘to 
be in store’ [A#s. Ag. 961].) The most that can be said is that 
the word is very often used with a relative meaning ; while, at the 
same time, it often occurs simply as ‘to be.’ (See Schmidt, 
Synon. 81, 7.) 

οὐχ ἁρπαγμὸν ἡγήσατο τὸ εἶναι ἴσα θεῷ : ‘counted it not a prize 
to be on an equality with God.’ 

“Apraypov is here equivalent to ἅρπαγμα, the more regular form 
for the object of the action, — the thing seized, — while substan- 
tives in μος have usually an active sense. There are, however, 
exceptions to this. Thus θεσμός and χρησμός are neither of them 
used actively. Φραγμός, ‘a fencing in,’ is also used like φράγμα, 
‘a fence.’ ᾿Αγιασμός is both ‘the act of consecration’ and ‘ sanctifi- 
cation.’ (Comp. ὀνειδισμός, σωφρονισμός, and ἱλασμός.) There is 
only one example of ἁρπαγμός in any class. author (Plut. AZorad. 
p- 12 A) where the meaning is apparently active. It occurs in 
two passages of Cyr. Alex., De Adorat. i. 25, and Cont. Jul. vi., 
both in a passive sense, and in Euseb. Comm. in Luc. vi., also 
passive. Max. Conf. Schol. in Lib. de divin. nom. 57 D, explains 
οὐχ dpm. ny. by οὐκ ἀπηξίωσεν ὡς ἄνθρωπος ὑπακοῦσαι. It should 
also be observed that γαφίρια, by which ἁρπαγμὸν is rendered in 
the Lat. trans. of Origen and Theo. Mops., is used both actively 
and passively, the latter in poetry and late Latin. In this condi- 
tion of the evidence it is certainly straining a point, to say the 
least, to insist on making the rendering of the passage turn on 
the active meaning of apwaypov, as Mey. “Apzayya is often used 
with ἡγεῖσθαι, as ἁρπαγμὸν here, in the sense of ‘to clutch greedily.’ 

ἡγήσατο: See on vs. 3. Weiss suggests that the phrase apm. 7y. 
may have been chosen with reference to ἡγούμενοι of vs. 3, in order 
to emphasise the disposition from which Christ’s self-humiliation 
proceeded. 

τὸ εἶναι ἴσα θεῷ : Kiva, ‘ to exist’ ; not as the abstract substantive 
verb ‘to be.’ “Ica is adverbial, ‘in a manner of equality.’ (Comp. 
Thue. iii. 14; Eurip. Ovest. 882; and other examples in Win. 
xxvii.) (See LXX; Job v. 14; Sap. vii. 3.) The phrase there- 


Ι 


II. 6, 7] THE FORM OF A BONDSERVANT 59 


fore does not mean ‘to be equal with God,’ but ‘ existence in the 
way of equality with God’ (Mey., Ellic., Weiss, De W., KI.). 


Others, as Lightf., take ἴσα predicatively, and εἶναι as ‘ to be.’ 


7. ἀλλὰ ἑαυτὸν ἐκένωσεν : ‘but emptied himself.’ For the verb, 
Ἐπ: hom. v.14 5.0 Cor. 1.17, 1x.'15 ;\'2’ Cor. ix.'35 LXX: Jer. 
xiv. 2, xv. 9. Not used or intended here in a metaphysical sense 
to define the limitations of Christ’s incarnate state, but as a strong 
and graphic expression of the completeness of his self-renuncia- 
tion. It includes all the details of humiliation which follow, and 
is defined by these. Further definition belongs to speculative 
theology. On Baur’s attempt to show traces of Gnostic teaching 
in these words, see Introd. vi. 

μορφὴν δούλου λαβών : ‘having taken the form of a bondservant.’ 
Characterising ἕαυ. ἐκ. generally. The participle is explanatory, 
‘by taking.’ (Comp. Eph.i.g; and see Burt. 145, and Win. xlv.) 
Μορφὴν, as in vs. 6, an expression or manifestation essentially 
characteristic of the subject. Christ assumed that form of being 
which completely answered to and characteristically expressed the 
being of a bondservant. Only μορφὴ δούλου must not be taken as 
implying a slave-condition, but a condition of service as contrasted 
with the condition of equality with God. 


e, as Mey., Ellic., supply θεοῦ, “ servant of God.’ But this limits the 
ee ta auly. He was not servant of God only, but of men also. (Comp. 
Mt. xx. 27, 28; Mk. x. 44, 45; Lk. xii. 37; Jn. xiii. 1-5, 13-17.) 


ἐν ὁμοιώματι ἀνθρώπων γενόμενος : ‘having become (been made) 
in the likeness of men.’ Defining pop. dov. AaB. more specifically. 
Ὁμοιώματι does not imply the reality of Christ’s humanity as μορφὴ 
Ge. implied the reality of his deity. The former fact is stated in 
ἐν op. Sov. As that phrase expressed the inmost reality of Christ’s 
servantship, — the fact that he really became the servant of men, 
— so ἐν 6p. av. expresses the fact that his mode of manifestation 
resembled what men are. This leaves room for the other side of 
his nature, the divine, in the likeness of which he did not appear. 
His likeness to men was real, but it did not express his whole self. 
The totality of his being could not appear to men, for that would 
involve the pop. 6c. The apostle views him solely as he could 
appear to men. All that was possible was a real and complete 
likeness to humanity. (Comp. Rom. v. 14, vi. 5, vii. 3.) “To 
affirm likeness is at once to assert similarity and to deny sameness”’ 
(Dickson, Baird Lect., 1883). 

γενόμενος : Contrasted with ὑπάρχων. He entered into a new 
state. (Comp. Jn. i. 14; Gal. iv. 4; 1 Tim. iii. 16.) For the 
phrase γενόμενος ἐν, see Lk. xxii. 44 ; Acts xxii. 17; Rom. xvi. 7; 
2 Cor. i Hi; 

καὶ σχήματι sipebeds ws ἄνθρωπος : ‘and being found in fashion 


60 PHILIPPIANS [11. 7, 8 


as aman.’ Σχῆμα is the outward fashion which appeals to the 
senses. The ‘form of a bondservant’ expresses the fact that the 
manifestation as a servant corresponded to the real fact that Christ 
came as a servant of men. In ἐν ὄμ. ἄνθ. the thought is still linked 
with that of his essential nature, which rendered an absolute iden- 
tity with men impossible. In σχῆμ. εὗρ. the thought is confined 
to the outward guise as it appealed to human observation. Σχῆμα 
denotes something changeable as well as external. It is an acci- 
dent of being. (See 1 Cor. vii. 31.) The compounds of μορφὴ 
and σχῆμα bring out the difference between the inward and the 
outward. Thus συμμόρφους, Rom. viii. 29; συμμορφιζόμενος, Phil. 
iii. 10; μεταμορφούμεθα (otcGe), 2 Cor. ili. 18 ; Rom. xii. 2; μορφω- 
θῃ, Gal. iv. το ;—all of an inner, spiritual process, while συσχη- 
ματίζεσθαι (Rom. xii. 2; 1 Ῥεῖ. 1. 14) marks a process affecting 
that which is outward. See the two together in Phil. iii. 21. See 
Lightf.’s note on the synonyms μορφὴ and σχῆμα (Comm. p. 127). 


Mey. and De W. take καὶ ox... . ἄνθ. with the preceding clause: 
‘becoming in the likeness of men and (so) found in fashion,’ etc. This is 
plausible, but it makes the next sentence very abrupt, and breaks the pro- 
gression. Evpe@els introduces a new portion of the history. The laying 
aside of the form of God — the self-emptying — consisted in his taking the 
form of a servant and becoming in the likeness of men. In this condition 
he is found. In this new guise he first becomes apprehensible to human 
perception; and on this stage, where he is seen by men, other acts of 
humiliation follow. (Comp. Is. liii. 2.) 


Eipefeis is not a Hebraism, nor does it stand for εἶναι. iva 
expresses the quality of a person or thing in itself; εὗρ. the quality 
as it is discovered and recognised. (Comp. Mt. i. 18; Lk. xvii. 
18; Acts v. 39; Rom. vii. 10; 2 Cor. xi. 12; and see Win. Ixv.) 

ὡς : not whaz¢ he was recognised to be, which would have been 
expressed by ἄνθρωπος alone; but as, keeping up the idea of 
semblance expressed in ὁμοιώματι. 

8. ἐταπείνωσεν ἑαυτὸν : ‘he humbled himself.’ The emphasis 
is on the act, not on the subject. Not synonymous with ἐκένωσεν. 
(Comp. .2/Cor, xi..7 5 Phil.iv. 12.) 

The more general ἐταπείνωσεν is now specifically defined. 
γενόμενος ὑπήκοος : ‘becoming obedient or subject.’ He became 
as a man; in that condition he humbled himself; his humiliation 
appeared in his subjection. Tevdu., with an explanatory force, ‘ by 
becoming.’ Understand θεῷ. (Comp. Mt. xxvi. 39; Rom. v. 19; 
Heb. ν. 8.) 

μέχρι θανάτου: ‘even unto death.’ To the extent of death. 
(Comp. Heb. xii. 4 ; 2 Tim. ii. 9.) 

θανάτου δὲ σταυροῦ : ‘yea, death of the cross.’ 

Δὲ introduces another and more striking detail of the humilia- 
tion, and leads on to a climax: ‘death, yea, the most ignominious 
of deaths.’ For this force of 8, comp. Rom. iii. 22, ix. 20. 


II. 8, 9] HUMILIATION ISSUED IN EXALTATION 61 


σταυροῦ: καὶ adds του. The close of the description leaves the 
reader at the very lowest point of Christ’s humiliation, death as a 
malefactor ; the mode of death to which a curse was ‘attached in 
the Mosaic law. (See Deut. xxi. 23; Gal. iii. 13; Heb. xii. 2.) 
Paul, as a Roman citizen, was exempt from this disgrace. 


The result of this humiliation was the highest exaltation. 


9-11. On this account God exalted him above all creatures, 
and bestowed on him the name which ts above every name; that in 
the name of Jesus all beings in heaven, earth, and hades, should 
bow the knee and acknowledge him as Lord, and by this confession 
glorify God the Father. 


9. διὸ καὶ ὁ θεὸς αὐτὸν ὑπερύψωσεν : ‘wherefore also God highly 
exalted him.’ 
διὸ: ‘in consequence of which.’ (Comp. Heb. ii. 9, xii. 2.) 
The idea of Christ’s receiving his exaltation as a reward was 
repugnant to the Reformed theologians. Calvin attempts to 
evade it by explaining διὸ as guvo facto, which is utterly untenable. 
At the same time, it is not necessary to insist on the idea of rec- 
ompense, since διὸ may express simply consequence ; and exalta- 
tion is the logical result of humility in the N.T. economy (Mt. 
xxiii. 12; Lk. xiv. 11, xviii. 14). As Mey. remarks, “ Christ’s 
saying in Mt. xxiii. 12 was gloriously fulfilled in his own case.” 
“Die Erniedrigung ist nur die noch nicht eingetretene Herrlich- 
keit,’’ says Schmidt (Art. “Stand, doppelter Christi,” Herz. R/. 
£nc.). For διὸ καὶ introducing a result, see Lk. i. 35 ; Acts x. 29. 
The consequence corresponding to the humiliation is expressed 
by καὶ. 
Different explanations of καὶ are given, however. Lightf. and Kl. main- 


tain the sense of reciprocation, — ‘ God, on his part’; Ellic., contrast of the 
exaltation with the previous humiliation. 


ὑπερύψωσεν : Only here in N.T. In LXX; Ps. xcvii. (xcvi.) 9; 
Dan. iv. 34. Not in class. Gk. Paul is fond of ὑπὲρ in com- 
pounds, and the compounds with ὑπὲρ are nearly all in his writ- 
ings. (See Ellic. on Eph. iii. 20.) Its force here is not ‘more 
than before,’ nor ‘ above his previous state of humiliation,’ but ‘in 
superlative measure.’ This exaltation took place through Christ’s 
ascension (Rom. i. 3, 4, viii. 34; Eph. iv. 9,10; Col.iii.1). But 
the exaltation is viewed, not in respect of its mode, but as a state 
of transcendent glory, including his sitting at God’s right hand 
(Rom. viii. 34 ; Col. iii. 1) ; his lordship over the living and the 
dead (Rom. xiv. 9); ; and his reign in glory (1 Cor, xv, 25 )- 

καὶ ἐχαρίσατο αὐτῷ τὸ ὄνομα τὸ ὑπὲρ πᾶν ὄνομα: ‘and gave unto 
him the name which is above every name.’ 


62 PHILIPPIANS [11. 9, 10 


ἐχαρίσατο: See on i. 29. Christ obtained as a gift what he 
renounced as a prize. (See Eph. i. 21; Heb. i. 4.) 

τὸ ὄνομα : Possibly with a reference to the practice of giving a 
new name to persons at important crises in their lives. (See Gen. 
Xvil. 5, XXxll. 28; Apoc. ii. 17, iii. 12.) The name conferred is 
JESUS CHRIST, combining the human name, which points to 
the conquest won in the flesh, and the Messianic name, ‘the 
Anointed of God.’ The two factors of the name are successively 
taken up in vs. 10, 11. 


There is a great variety of explanations on this point: Κύριος (K1., Lips., 
Weiss), Ἰησοῦς (Ellic., ΕΔ4.), Ἰησοῦς Χριστὸς (De W., Mey.), Υἱὸς (Thdrt., 
Pelag., Aug. ), Θεὸς (Theoph., Ec.). Lightf. holds that ὄνομα means ‘ title’ 
or ‘ dignity,’ and must be taken in the same sense in both verses. (See on 
next vs. ) 


The reading To ovoua is acc. to αὶ ABC 17. το is omitted by DFGKLP. 


10. iva: Denotes the purpose of the exaltation. 

ἐν τῷ ὀνόματι Ἰησοῦ : ‘Zn the name of Jesus’ ; not ‘athe name.’ 
Ὄνομα with rod κυρ. qu. “IX, or τ. κυρ. L, or κυρ. Ἶ., or αὐτοῦ 
(Cht.), occurs ten times in Paul. In none of these cases is the 
word a mere title of address. Paul follows the Hebrew usage, in 
which the name is used for everything which the name covers, so 
that the name is equivalent to the person himself. (So Mt. vi. 9, 
x. 41.) To baptize into the name of the Father, Son, and Holy 
Spirit is to put the subject of baptism symbolically into connection 
and communion with all that those names represent. He who 
believes on the name of the Lord believes on the Lord himself. 
Hence, to bow the knee in the name of Jesus is to pay adoration 
in that sphere of authority, grace, and glory for which the name 
stands ; as being consciously within the kingdom of which he is 
Lord, as recognising the rightfulness of the titles ‘Jesus,’ ‘Saviour,’ 
‘Lord,’ and as loyally accepting the obligations which those titles 
imply. 

πᾶν γόνυ κάμψῃ : Comp. Is. xlv. 23; Rom. xiv. 11. The mean- 
ing can only be that Christ is presented as the object of worship ; 
his claim to that honor being fixed by the previous declarations. 
Before his incarnation he was on an equality with God. After 
his incarnation he was exalted to God’s right hand as Messianic 
sovereign. 

ἐπουρανίων καὶ ἐπιγείων καὶ καταχθονίων : The whole body of 
created intelligent beings in all departments of the universe. 
(See Rom. viii. 21; 1 Cor. xv. 24; Eph. i. 20-22; Heb. 1]. 8; 
Apoc. v. 13; and comp. Ign. Ζγαζ, ix.; Polyc. Phil. ii.) Ἔπου- 
ράνιοι are heavenly beings, angels, archangels, etc. (Eph. i. 21, 
lili. 10; Heb. i. 4-6; 1 Pet. iii. 23) ; ἜἘπίγειοι, beings on earth 
(1 Cor. xv. 40). 

καταχθονίων : Only here in Bib. and Apocr. In class. of the 
infernal gods. Chr., Géc., Theoph., and the medizval expositors 

᾿ ΓΙ 


II. 10, 11] JESUS CHRIST IS LORD 63 


explain of the demons, citing Lk. iv. 34; Jas. ii. 19. These, 
however, are not regarded by Paul as in Hades. (See Eph. ii. 2, 
vi. 12.) Rather the departed in Hades. Nothing definite as to 
Christ’s descent into Hades can be inferred from this. 


Lightf. regards all the genitives as neuter, urging that the whole creation 
is intended, and that the limitation to intelligent beings detracts from the 
universality of the homage. ‘This, however, seems to be over-subtilising. 


11. ἐξομολογήσηται : ‘should confess.’ The LXX, Is. xlv. 23, 
has ὀμεῖται, ‘shall swear,’ for which the seventh-century correctors 
of x read ἐξομολογήσεται. 

WH., Treg., R.T., Weiss. ( 7x¢k. Unt.), read εξομολογησηται with & B; 


Tisch. εξομολογησεται, with ACDFGKLP. It is possible that era: may have 
been altered to yrac by transcribers in order to conform it to κάμψῃ. 


Lightf. renders ‘confess with thanksgiving.’ He says that the 
secondary sense of éfouod., ‘to offer thanks,’ has almost entirely 
supplanted its primary meaning, ‘to declare openly.’ But out 
of eleven instances in the N.T., four are used of confessing sins, 
one of Christ’s confession of his servants before the Father, and 
one of Judas’ ‘agreeing’ or ‘engaging’ with the chief priests. 
He says, further, that ‘confess with thanksgiving’ is the meaning 
in Is. xlv. 23. But the reading there is ὀμεῖται. 

Κύριος does not necessarily imply divinity. It is used in LXX 
of Abraham (Gen. xviii. 12; comp. 1 Pet. iii. 6); of Joseph 
(Gen. xlii. 10, 33) ; of Elkanah (1 Sam.i. 8). In the Pauline 
writings the master of slaves is styled both δεσπότης (τ Tim. vi. 1, 
2; Tit. ii. 9), and κύριος (Eph. vi.g; Col. iv. 1). Often in N.T. 
in the general sense of ‘ master,’ or in address, ‘sir.’ Of God, 
Mt. i. 20, 22, 24, ii. 15; Acts xi. 16. ‘O κύριος is used by Mt. 
of Christ only once (xxi. 3) until after the resurrection (xxviii. 16). 
In the other gospels much oftener. In the progress of Christian 
thought in the N.T. the meaning develops towards a specific des- 
ignation of the divine Saviour, as may be seen in the expressions 
‘Jesus Christ our Lord,’ ‘Jesus our Lord,’ etc. Von Soden re- 
marks: “God gave him the name Jesus Christ. It was necessary 
that his human, Messianic character should be developed before 
men would confess that Jesus is Lord. What God as Jehovah in 
the old Covenant has determined and prepared, Christ shall now 
carry out.” 

εἰς δόξαν θεοῦ πατρός : ‘to the glory of God the Father.’ (Comp. 
Jn. xii. 28, xiii. 31, 32, Xiv. 13, xvii. 1.) The words are dependent 
upon ἐξομολ., not on ὅτι. It is che confession that is to be to ther 
glory of God the Father, not the fact that Christ is Lord. (See 
Rom. xv. 7-9; Eph. i. 6, 11, 12; 2 Cor. i. 20.) ‘Everywhere 
where the Son is glorified the Father is glorified. Where the Son 
is dishonored the Father is dishonored” (Chr.). (See Lk. x. 16; 


Τὰ. 2.2.) 


64 PHILIPPIANS [11. 12 


Some practical exhortations are now drawn from the divine 
example just portrayed, especially from the spirit of subjection 
exhibited by the incarnate Lord. 


12-18. Wherefore, my beloved brethren, even as you have always 
manifested a spirit of obedience, so now, not as though I were 
present, but much more in my absence, carry out your own salva- 
tion with conscientious caution and self-distrust, because you are 
appointed to carry out God’s good pleasure; and it is for this that 
God energises your will and stimulates you to work. That you 
may thus carry the divine will into effect, perform all tts dictates 
without murmuring or criticising, that so you may show yourselves 
blameless and guileless, true children of God in the midst of an 
ungodly society, in which you are to appear, holding forth the gospel 
as luminaries in a dark world. Thus I shall have good reason to 
boast when Christ shall appear, that my labors for you have not 
been in vain. Yes, even tf, along with the offering of your faith to 
God, my own blood ts to be poured out like a Libation ata sacrifice, 
7 rejoice in this, because my death will only promote the working 
out of your salvation; and this will be a cause of joy to you no 
less than to me. 


12. wore: ‘so that’; ‘so then.’ The point of connection 
through wore with the preceding passage is ὑπήκοος in vs. 8. As 
Christ obtained exaltation and heavenly glory through perfect 
obedience to God, therefore do you, with like subjection to him, 
carry out your own salvation. The spirit of obedience is to be 
shown in their godly fear, in the avoidance of murmuring and 
skeptical criticism, and in their holy lives and their bold proclam- 
ation of the gospel in the midst of ungodly men. For a similar 
use of wore, comp. iv. 1; Rom. vii. 12; 1 Cor. xiv. 39, xv. 58. 

ὑπηκούσατε : Ὑπακούειν is, properly, to obey as the result of list- 
ening or hearkening (ἀκούειν). Πειθαρχεῖν, which is much less 
frequent, is the only word which expresses the conception of obed- 
ience absolutely —as to authority (ἀρχή). (See Acts v. 29, 32, 
XXVil. 21; Tit. iii. 1.) The question whether θεῷ or poi is to be 
supplied is quite superfluous, since ὕπηκ. is used absolutely. Ye 
have always shown a spirit of obedience, whether to God or to me 
as his apostle. 

μὴ ὡς ἐν TH παρουσίᾳ pov μόνον : ‘not as in my presence only.’ 
Connect with κατεργάζεσθε, not with πάντ. ὕπηκ., which would 
require ov instead of μὴ (see Win. lv, and Burt. 479), and would 
imply that the readers, left to themselves, had been more obedient 
than when Paul was with them. 


II. 12] CARRY OUT YOUR OWN SALVATION 65 


ὡς : Introduced because Paul could not give an admonition 
for the time when he would be present. It points to an inward 
motive by which the readers are not to suffer themselves to be 
influenced. (Comp. Rom. ix. 32; 2 Cor. il. 17; Philem. 14.) 
They are not to work out their salvation as zf they were doing it 
in Paul’s presence merely, neglecting it in his absence. 


ws omitted by Lat., Vet., Vulg., Syr.?, Cop., Arm., Aith., B, 17. WH. 
bracket. 


μόνον : with ἐν τῇ παρ. μου, on which the emphasis lies. For 
its position after the emphatic word, comp. Rom. iv. 16, 23; 
1 Thess. i. 5. 

νῦν : Now that you are deprived of my personal presence. 

ἀπουσίᾳ : Only here in Gk. Bib., and not common anywhere. 

μετὰ φόβου καὶ τρόμου τὴν ἑαυτῶν σωτηρίαν κατεργάζεσθε : ‘carry 
out your own salvation with fear and trembling.’ (Comp. Heb. 
xii. 28.) 

Φόβος and τρόμος often occur together in LXX. (See Gen. 
io, bs, xv. τὸ; Is. xix.'26.). In N-T.sée τὶ Cor. 1 35/2 Cor. 
vii. 15 ; Eph. vi. 5. Φόβος is godly fear, growing out of recogni- 
tion of weakness and of the power of temptation ; filial dread of 
offending God. (See Acts ix. 31; Rom. iii. 18; 2 Cor. vii. 1; 
1 Pet. i. 17, i. 15.) Chr. justly observes that καὶ τρόμου only 
strengthens the per. 668. Paul would say: ‘The work is great. 
Failure is possible. Do not be over confident.’ “It is necessary 
to fear and tremble in each one’s working out of his own salvation, 
lest he be tripped up (ὑποσκελισθεῖς) and fail of this” (Céc.). 

τὴν ἕαυτ. σωτ. KaTepy.: Κατεργάζεσθαι is ‘to accomplish’; 
‘achieve’; ‘carry out or through. So Beng., “usque ad 
metam”; Calov., “ad finem perducere”; Grot., “peragere.” 
(see πη εἶν. πο Vv. 3 5.2 Cor. v. 5; Jas. is 3; Eph. vi. 13 ; and 
comp. especially 2 Cor. vii. 10.) There is no contradiction implied 
of the truth that salvation is the gift of God’s grace (Eph. ii. 8). 
That grace itself engenders moral faculties and stimulates moral 
exertions. ecause grace is given, man must work. The gift of 
grace is exhibited in making man a co-worker with God (1 Cor. 
ili. 9) ; the salvation bestowed by grace is to be carried out by 
man with the aid of grace (Rom. vi. 8-19; 2 Cor. vi.1). What 
this carrying out includes and requires is seen in Phil. iii. ro, 
iv. 1-7; Eph. iv. 13-16, 22 ff.; Col.ii.6, 7. For these things the 
believer is constantly strengthened by the Spirit. The possibility 
of success appears in Paul’s prayer (Eph. iii. 16-20). Ned a 
good passage in Pfleiderer, Paulinismus, P. 234. ) 

ἑαυτῶν : ‘your own’; ποΐ ΞΞ ἀλλήλων, “ one another’s,’ as some 
earlier expositors, against which is the emphatic position of éavr., 
though the rendering would be grammatically justifiable. (See 
Mt. xvi. 7, xxi. 38; Eph. iv. 32.) ‘Eavrdv is emphatic as related 

F 


66 PHILIPPIANS [11. 12, 13 


to the following θεὸς. God is working in you; do your part as 
co-workers with God. 

13. θεὸς yap ἐστιν ὃ ἐνεργῶν ἐν ὑμῖν Kai τὸ θέλειν καὶ τὸ ἐνεργεῖν 
ὑπὲρ τῆς εὐδοκίας : ‘for it is God that worketh in you both the 
willing and the working for his good pleasure.’ The reason for 
the exhortation xarepy. is that it is God’s own work which they 
have to do. It is God’s good pleasure which they are to fulfil, as 
did their great example, Jesus Christ ; and it is God who, to that 
end, is energising their will and their working. (See 2 Cor. v. 18.) 
This is a serious task, to be performed in no self-reliant spirit, but 
with reverent caution and dependence on God. 

Tap does not introduce the reason for the fear and trembling 
especially, but only as these are attached to κατεργ. It gives the 
reason for the entire clause, κατεργ. . . . τρόμου. 

ὁ ἐνεργῶν : ᾿Βνεργεῖν is ‘to put forth power’; and the kindred 
ἐνέργεια (always in N.T. of superhuman power) is ‘ power in exer- 
cise.’ Paul invariably uses the active, ἐνεργεῖν, of the working of 
God or of Satan, and the middle, ἐνεργεῖσθαι, in other cases, as 
Rom. vii. 5 ; Gal. v. 6. Never the passive. The verb carries the 
idea of effectual working, as here ; and the result is often specified. 
(See Rom. vii. 5 ; Gal. ii. 8, ili. 5 ; Eph.i. 11 ff.) On the different 
words for ‘ power, in N.T., see W. δ, ΟΠ. ἢ: 12. 

ἐν ὑμῖν : ‘in you,’ as I Cor. xii. 6; 2, Cor. iy. 12; Eph. 15: 
Col. i. 29. Not ‘among you.’ 

τὸ θέλειν : As between θέλειν and βούλεσθαι, the general distinct- 
ion is that θέλ. expresses a determination or definite resolution of 
the will; while Bova. expresses an inclination, disposition, or wish. 
The two words are, however, often interchanged in N.T. when no 
distinction is emphasised. (Comp. Mk. xv. 15 and Lk. xxiii. 20; 
Acts xxvii. 43 and Mt. xxvii. 17; Jn. xviii. 39 and Mt. xiv. 5 ; 
Mk. vi. 48 and Acts xix. 30.) (See W. S¢ on Mt. i. 19.) Here 
θέλειν, of a definite purpose or determination. 

τὸ ἐνεργεῖν : The inward working in the soul, producing the 
determination which is directed at the xarepy. (Comp. 1 Cor. 
xii. 6; Gal. iii. 5; Eph. iii. 20.) The two substantive-infinitives 
are used rather than nouns because active energy is emphasised ; 
and the two xai’s point to the fact that 40¢h —the willing and the 
working alike—are of God. God so works upon the moral 
nature that it not only intellectually and theoretically approves 
what is good (Rom. vii. 14-23), but appropriates God’s will as its 
own. The willing wrought by God unfolds into all the positive 
and determinate movements of the human will to carry God’s will 
into effect. 

ὑπὲρ τῆς εὐδοκίας : ‘ for the sake of his good pleasure.’ Different 
connections have been proposed for this clause. That with the 
succeeding verse, ‘for good will’s sake do all things,’ etc., may be 
summarily dismissed. The majority of interpreters rightly con- 


II. 13-15] SHUN MURMURINGS AND QUESTIONINGS 67 


nect it with 6 ἐνεργῶν : ‘it is God who works in you the willing 
and the working in order that he may carry out his good pleasure.’ 
Paul’s thought is this: Carry out your own salvation with holy 
fear, and especially for the reason that it is God’s good pleasure 
that you should achieve that result; and therefore he energises 
your will and your activity in order that you may fulfil his good 
pleasure in your completed salvation. 

εὐδοκίας : See on i. 15. Not mere arbitrary preference, as if 
Paul meant that God thus works because it suits him to do so. 
Nor, as Weiss, the pleasure which he has in working. Rather 
that his good pleasure is bound up with his fatherly love and 
benevolence which find their satisfaction in his children’s accom- 
plished salvation. Hence ὑπὲρ is not= κατὰ, as if εὐδοκία were 
the norm or standard of God’s working (however true that may 
be abstractly), but expresses “ the interested cause of the action”’ 
(Ellic.), as Jn. xi. 4; Rom. xv. 8. 

Certain elements of the owr. xarepy. 

14. πάντα ποιεῖτε χωρὶς γογγυσμῶν καὶ διαλογισμῶν : ‘do all 
things without murmurings and questionings.’ 

πάντα: Everything that may fall to them to do. (Comp. 
1 Cor, Χ;. 21.) 

γογγυσμῶν : Not elsewhere in Paul. (See Jn. ν. 12; Acts vi. 1 ; 
1 Ῥαΐ. τὸ. ο; POCX τὰκ. avis. 75.8; 9) 12; ΝΗ. ἈΝ." 5, τὸ} 
Murmuring against the dictates of God’s will is meant. (See 
t Cor..x. το.) 

διαλογισμῶν : Skeptical questionings or criticisms. (Comp. 
1 Tim. ii. 8.) Usually by Paul in the sense of ‘ disputatious rea- 
soning.’ “(See Rom. ἢ 21, \x1v..1; 1 Cor. m.20.) So LXX; 
Ps. lvi. 5 (Iv. 6), xciv. (xciii.) 11; Is. lix. 7. The verb διαλογίζ- 
εσθαι, always to ‘reason’ or ‘discuss,’ either with another or in 
one’s own mind. 

*Mey., De W., Lips., Ellic., Ead., render ‘doubtings.’ (Ες., Theoph., 
Ans., ‘hesitation’ whether to perform God’s commands. So De W. and 
Mey. Weiss, ‘hesitation’ with reference to things which are to be done or 


suffered for the sake of salvation. Others, ‘doubts’ about future reward, 
or the divine promises. 


15. ἵνα γένησθε ἄμεμπτοι καὶ ἀκέραιοι : ‘that ye may become 
blameless and guileless.’ 


For γενησθε ADFG, Vet., Lat., Vulg., read τε. 


γένησθε : ‘become,’ in the process of owr. xarepy. 

ἄμεμπτοι : Before both God and men. 

ἀκέραιοι : lit. ‘unmixed,’ ‘ unadulterated,’ describing the inward 
condition. (Comp. Mt. x. 16; Rom. xvi. g.) 

τέκνα θεοῦ ἄμωμα : ‘children of God without blemish.’ 

Both τέκνον and vids signify a relation based upon parentage. 
It is usually said that τέκνον emphasises the natural relationship, 


68 PHILIPPIANS [11. 15 


while υἱός marks the legal or ethical status (Thay. Zex. sub τέκνον, 
and Sanday on Rom. viii. 14. Comp. Westcott, Eps. of John, 
p- 121) ; but this distinction must not be too closely pressed. In 
LXX both τέκνα and υἱός are applied ethically to the people of 
Israel as God’s peculiarly beloved people; so τέκνα (Is. xxx. 1; 
Sap. xvi. 21) ; or so by implication as inhabitants of his favored 
seat (Joel ii. 23 ; Zech. ix. 13, comp. Mt. xxiii. 37) ; vids (Is. xliii. 
6; Deut. xiv. 1; Sap. ix. 7, xii. 19, etc.). In the ethical sense, in 
which the distinctive character is indicated by its source, we find 
τέκνα ἀδικίας (Hos. x. 9), σοφίας (Mt. xi. 19), ὑπακοῆς (1 Pet. i. 14), 
φωτὸς (Eph. v. 8), ὀργῆς (Eph. ii. 3). Similarly viol, according 
to the Hebrew use of 3, 23 to mark characteristic quality as 
conditioned by origin. Thus viol τῶν ἀνθρώπων, indicating change- 
ableness, Num. xxiii. 19 ; indicating people accursed, 1 Sam. xxvi. 
19; vi. TOV αἰῶνος τούτου, φωτὸς, Lk. xvi. 8; ἀπειθίας, Eph. ii. 2 ; 
διαβόλου, Acts xiii. 10; γεέννης, Mt. xiii. 15. It is true that John 
never uses vids to describe the relation of Christians to God 
(Apoc. xxi. 7 15 a quotation) ; but both the ethical relation and 
the relation of conferred privilege, as well as that of birth, attach 
to τέκνα. See Jn. i. 12, where believers receive ἐξουσία or con- 
ferred right to become τέκνα θεοῦ, on the ground of faith. Believ- 
ers are τέκνα in virtue of the gift of divine love (1 Jn. iii. 1). The 
τέκνα θεοῦ are manifest as such by their righteous deeds and their 
brotherly love (1 Jn. iii. 10). On the other hand, those who 
have the true filial disposition are described as ‘begotten’ or 
‘porn’ of God (γεγεννημένοι), Jn. i. 13, iii. 3, 73 I Jn. iil. 9, iv. 7, 
v. 1, 4, 18. It is also true that Paul often regards the Christian 
relation, from the legal point of view, as adoption. He alone 
uses υἱοθεσία (Rom. viii. 15, 23; Gal. iv.5; Eph.i.5). But in 
Rom. viii. 14, 17, we have both υἱοὶ and τέκνα. ‘They who are 
led by the Spirit are υἱοὶ ; the Spirit witnesses that they are τέκνα. 
Both these are ethical. In vs. 21 the legal aspect appears in τὴν 
ἐλευθερίαν ... τ. τέκ. τ. Oe. (Comp. Eph. v. 1; Rom. ix. 8.) 
ἄμωμα : ‘without blemish.’ 


αμωμα as δαὶ ABC, 17. DFGKLP read αμωμητα. 
apwunros never in LXX. The citn. is from Deut. xxxii. 5, and αμωμητα 
is probably due to μωμητα there. 


For ἄμωμα comp. Eph. i. 4, v. 27; Col. i. 22; ἀμώμητος, ‘ that 
cannot be blamed,’ only in 2 Pet. iii. 14. 

μέσον γενεᾶς σκολιᾶς καὶ διεστραμμένης : ‘in the midst of a crooked 
and perverse generation.’ (See Deut. xxxii. 5, and comp. Mt. xii. 
39, xvii. 17.) 

Μέσον (TR ἐν μέσῳ) is adverbial, with the force of a preposition 
(Win. liv.). 

σκολίας : ‘indocile,’ ‘ froward.’ Only here in Paul. (See Acts ii. 
40; 1 Pet. ii. 18; LXX; Ps. Ixxviii. [Ixxvii.] 8; Prov. ii. 15, etc.) 


II. 15,16] LIGHT-BEARERS IN A DARK WORLD 69 


διεστραμμένης : ‘twisted’ or ‘distorted.’ Only here in Paul. 
It denotes an abnormal moral condition. xoAtds is the result of 
διαστρέφειν. Comp. στρεβλοῦν (2 Pet. iii. 16), ‘to twist or dislo- 
cate on the rack.’ 

ἐν ols φαίνεσθε ὡς φωστῆρες ἐν κόσμῳ : ‘among whom ye are 
seen (appear) as luminaries in the world.’ 

ots: For the plural after γενεᾶς comp. Acts xv. 36; 2 Pet. iii. 1 ; 
Gal. iv. 19; and see Blass, Gramm. p. 163. 

φαίνεσθε: Not ‘shine,’ which would be φαίνετε. (Comp. Mt. ii. 
7, xxiv. 27; Jas. iv. 14.) The word is indicative, not imperative. 
For the thought, comp. Mt. v. 14, 16; Eph. v. 8; 1 Thess. v. 5. 

φωστῆρες : Only here and Apoc. xxi. 11. In LXX of the heav- 
enly bodies, as Gen. 1. 14, 16. 

ἐν κόσμῳ : With φωστῆρες : luminaries in a dark world (Ellic., 
Mey., ΚΙ., Lips.). 


Lightf., De W., and Weiss connect with φαίνεσθε. Lightf.’s interpreta- 
tion turns on his explanation of κόσμος, which, he says, has in the N.T. a 
sense so dominantly ethical that it cannot well be used here of the physical 
as distinguished from the moral world. An examination of the number of 
instances in which κόσμος occurs in a physical sense will show that this 
view is groundless. If taken with φαίνεσθε, ἐν κόσμῳ would be merely an 
unmeaning expansion of ἐν οἷς; while with φωστῆρες we have a definite 
image. For the omission of the article with κόσμῳ see Win. xix. I a. 


16. λόγον ζωῆς ἐπέχοντες : ‘holding forth the word of life.’ 

λόγον ζωῆς : the gospel: a word which has life in itself, and 
which leads to life. The phrase not elsewhere in Paul. (Comp. 
Jn. vi. 68; Acts v.20; 1 Jn.i. 1.) By ζωὴ is not to be under- 
stood Christ himself, nor the eternal life, but the life which the 
Christian possesses through faith in Christ, and leads in fellowship 


“the divinely efficacious vehicle of the spirit of life.’ (Comp. 
Jn. vi. 68.) Life and light appear in correlation in Jn. 1. 4; 
Eph. ii. τ ; and especially since heathenism is regarded as a state 
alike of death and of darkness (Eph. ii. 1; Col. ii. 13). Ζωὴ is 
the correlative of salvation. With quickening from the death of 
sin the believer enters upon ‘newness of life’ (Rom. vi. 4, 11). 
This life, as to its quality, is that which shall be lived with the 
exalted Christ. Now it is hidden with Christ, because the exalted 
Christ is still hidden (Col. iii. 3; comp. Col. i. 5). But it will be 
manifested in glory when Christ, who is our life, shall be mani- 
fested (Col. iii. 4). Then will come the change into ‘ the likeness 
of the body of his glory’ (Phil. iii. 21), and “ mortality” will be 
“swallowed up of life’’ (2 Cor. v. 4). 

ἐπέχοντες : ‘holding forth.’ In Paul only here and 1 Tim. iv. 16. 
In LXX only in the sense of ‘apply,’ as Job xviii. 2, xxx. 26; or 


70 PHILIPPIANS [11. 16 


‘forbear’; ‘refrain,’ as 1 K. xxii. 6, 15. Lit. ‘to hold upon’ or 
‘apply.’ So ‘to fix the attention’ (Lk. xiv. 7; Acts iii. 5, xix. 22). 
In the sense of ‘to hold out’ or ‘ present’ it occurs only in class. 


‘Holding forth,’ as Ellic., Alf., Ead., Lightf.; ‘holding fast’ (Luth., 
Beng., De W.); ‘having in possession’ (K1., Lips., Mey., Weiss). Lightf. 
regards ἐν ols... κόσμῳ as parenthetical, and connects Ady. ἕω. éréx. with 
ἵνα yév. ... διεστραμ. (vs. 15). He finds an incongruity in the images 
φαίν. and émrex. Surely this is hypercritical, ‘Ye appear holding forth 
the word as a light.’ It is common to personify a luminary as a light- 
bearer. Paul was not always so consistent in his metaphors as this criticism 
would imply. See for inst. 2 Cor. iii. 2, 3, and Lightf. on 1 Thess, v. 4, 
Notes on Eps. of St. P. from unpublished Commentaries. (See Mey.’s citn. 
from Zest, xit. Patr.) 


eis καύχημα ἐμοὶ: ‘for a matter of glorying unto me.’ For 
καύχημα see on i. 26. Their success in working out their own 
salvation and proclaiming the gospel to others will be a cause of 
boasting to Paul. (Comp. 2 Cor. i. 14; 1 Thess. ii. 19.) Lis 
καύχ. ἐμ. belongs to the whole passage iva γεν. . . . ἐπέχ.; not 
merely to Ady. ζω. ἐπέχ. 

εἰς ἡμέραν Χριστοῦ : ‘against the day of Christ.’ (See on i. 10, 
and comp. Gal. iii. 23; Eph. iv. 30.) The day is the point with 
reference to which the boasting is reserved. Not ‘ wmd/ the day,’ 
etc. The glorying is put in relation to the decisions and awards 
of the parousia, as 2 Cor. i. 14. 

Ὅτι may be taken as explicative either of the nature of the 
glorying (‘that’), or of its ground (‘ because’). 

eis κενὸν : ‘in vain’; ‘fo no purpose.’ See for the phrase, 
2 Cor. vi. 1; Gal. ii. 2; 1 Thess. ili. 5. LXX, εἰς κενὸν, τὸ κεν.; 
κενὰ, Lev. xxvi. 20; ΙΟὉ 11. 9; xx. 18, xxxix. 163 Is, χχῖχ. 8 ; 
Jer. vi. 29. ‘In vain’ is the dominant thought here, as is shown 
by the repetition. 

ἔδραμον: Metaphor of the stadium, as Gal. ii, 2. (Comp. 
Acts xx. 24; 1 Cor. ix. 24; 2 Tim. iv. 7.) The aorist is used 
from the point of view of the day of Christ. 

ἐκοπίασα : Komuay, lit.‘ to labor to weariness’ ; κόπος, ‘ exhausting 
toil.’ (See 1 Cor. xv. 10 ; Gal. iv. τα ; Col. i. 29 ; 1 Thess. 11. 9, iii. 5.) 

Lightf. thinks that ἐκοπίασα is a continuation of the metaphor in ἔδραμον, 
— ‘labor such as is bestowed in training for the race.’ In his note on Ign. 
Polyc. vi. he says that κοπιᾷν is used especially of such training, and cites 
1 Cor. ix. 24-27; Col.i. 29; 1 Tim. iv. 10. I do not find any evidence of this 


special sense of the verb either in classical or N.T. Greek. Certainly in the 
athletic contests the wearisome labor was not confined to the preparation. 


Paul does not shrink from these labors. He will rejoice even 
in his martyrdom, since he believes that it will promote the work 
of salvation among his Philippian brethren. The assumption that 
vs. 16 implies his conviction that he will be alive at the Jarousia, 
and that vs. 17 is an admission of the contrary possibility, is entirely 
gratuitous. 


II. 17] THE LIBATION OF BLOOD 71 


17. ἀλλὰ εἰ καὶ : ‘but if even.’ The feebly supported reading 
καὶ εἰ, which does not appear elsewhere in Paul, would introduce 
an improbable supposition. Kai refers to the whole clause σπένδ. 

. πίστ., putting the case as possible (Win. liii.). 

σπένδομαι ἐπὶ τῇ θυσίᾳ καὶ λειτουργίᾳ τῆς πίστεως ὑμῶν : ‘I am 
poured out (as ἃ libation) in addition to the sacrifice and service 
of your faith.’ 

"Ext may mean ‘at,’ ‘upon,’ or ‘in addition to.’ Better the 
last (Ellic., De W., Weiss, KI., Lips.). ‘At’ (Mey.) would give 
an active meaning to θυσία. ‘Upon’ is precluded by λειτουργία. 

θυσίᾳ : Not the act of sacrificing, but the thing sacrificed. So 
always in N.T. (See Lk. xiii. 1; Acts vii. 41; Rom. xii. 1; 
t Cor. x. 18 ; Eph. v. 2.) 

λειτουργίᾳ : ‘ministry’ or ‘service.’ (See Lk. 1. 23; 2 Cor. ix. 
12; Heb. viii. 6, ix. 21.) From an old adjective λεῖτος or λέϊτος, 
found only in this compound, ‘belonging to the people,’ and 
épyov, ‘work.’ Hence, originally, ‘service of the state in a public 
office.’ In LXX the verb λειτουργεῖν, of the performance of priestly 
functions (Neh. x. 36) ; λειτουργεῖν and λειτουργὸς, of service ren- 
deren to men (1K. 1.4) xix. 2τ; 2K. ivi 43, vi. 15). In N.T:, 
of sacerdotal ministry (Acts xiii. 2; Heb. x. 11; Lk. i. 23; Heb. 
ix. 21; Rom. xiii. 6, xv. 16; Heb. viii. 2). Also of human, non- 
official ministry (Rom. xv. 27; 2 Cor. ix. 12; Phil. ii. 25, 30). 
In the general sense of ‘servants of God’ (λειτουργοὺς αὐτοῦ), 
Heb. i. 7. Here metaphorically in the priestly sense. Θυσ. and 
Aer. have the article in common, and form one conception (not a 
hendiadys), a sacrifice ministered. 

τῆς πίστεως ὑμῶν : The objective genitive common to θυσ. and 
Aer. ; a sacrifice which consists of your faith; a ministry which 
offers faith as a sacrifice. 

According to Paul’s metaphor, therefore, the Philippians as 
priests offer their faith to God in the midst of an ungodly genera- 
tion who had already shed Paul’s blood at Philippi, had impris- 
oned him at Rome, and would probably put him to death. If 
they should do this, Paul’s blood would be the libation which 
would be added to the Philippians’ offering. 

This explanation, in which Lightf. stands almost alone among modern 
expositors, is preferable because it accords better with the course of thought 
from vs. 12, in which the Philippians are the agents, and distinctly corre- 
sponds with Rom. xii. 2, where the Romans are exhorted to present their 
bodies as a sacrifice (θυσίαν), which is further described as λατρεία, ‘a 
service rendered to God.’ See note on λατρεύοντες (111. 3). In iv. 8, the 
gift of the Philippians is described as a sacrifice to God. The other and 
favorite interpretation makes Paul the priest, the Philippians’ faith the 
sacrifice, and Paul’s apostolic activity the ministry offering the sacrifice. 
Then the blood of the priest is poured out upon the sacrifice which he is 
offering. This explanation is urged principally upon the ground of Rom. 


xv. 16, 17, where Paul represents himself as λειτουργὸς, ministering the 
gospel in sacrifice, and presenting the Gentiles as an offering to God. But 


72 PHILIPPIANS [11. 17, 18 


in that passage Paul is specially exhibiting his apostolic office as a priestly 
service of offering ordained by Christ, who was himself made a minister 
that the Gentiles might glorify God for his mercy (vs. 8). That is the only 
instance of the figure, and in view of the great variety of Paul’s metaphors 
cannot be regarded as decisive. 


The fact that Paul is writing from Rome and to a Gentile church 
seems to indicate that the metaphor is cast in the mould of heathen 
rather than of Jewish sacrificial usage. Comp. 2 Cor. ii. 14, where 
the picture of a Roman triumph is suggested, with the clouds of 
incense rising from the altars. 

χαίρω καὶ συνχαίρω πᾶσιν ὑμῖν : “1 joy and rejoice with you all.’ 
Comp. μενῶ καὶ παραμενῶ (i. 25). The natural connection is with 
εἰ καὶ σπένδομαι as the subject of congratulation, not in itself, but 
as a means of promoting their salvation—that cause of boasting 
which he desires to have in them. Thus his joy will be fulfilled 
in them (vs. 2). 

συνχαίρω : “1 rejoice with.’ This is the natural and appropriate 
meaning in every N.T. passage in which the word occurs. The 
rendering ‘congratulate’ (Lightf., Mey.) is admissible in Lk. 
i. 58, xv. 6, 9, but the other is equally good. ‘Congratulate’ 
does not suit vs. 18. 

‘ Rejoice with’ is the rendering of the Gk. Fathers, Luth., Calv., De W., 

Wies., Weiss, Weizs., Lips., von Sod. Mey.’s objection, repeated by Lightf., 

that the apostle would thus summon his readers to a joy which, according to 


vs. 17, they already possessed, requires no notice beyond a reminder of the 
informal and familiar style of the epistle. 


Paul therefore says: Even if I should be poured out as a liba- 
tion in addition to the sacrifice of faith which you are offering to 
God, I rejoice, and rejoice with you, because such a result will 
promote your salvation, and that will be a cause of joy to us both 
alike. (Comp. Eph. iii. 13.) 

18. τὸ δὲ αὐτὸ καὶ ὑμεῖς χαίρετε καὶ συνχαίρετέ μοι : ‘for the same 
reason do ye also joy and rejoice with me.’ 

τὸ δὲ αὐτὸ : ‘for the same reason’; to wit, the advancement of 
the work of your salvation. For the grammatical construction, 
see Win. xxxil. 4@; and comp. Rom. vi. το. The verbs χαίρ. 
and ovvyaip. acquire a gvasi-transitive force. 


Rill., Weiss, Lightf., Weizs., R.V., render ‘in the same manner.’ 


χαίρετε καὶ συνχαίρετέ μοι: Comp. the striking figure of the 
Romans forming a chorus and singing a sacrificial hymn round 
the martyr Ignatius. (Ign. Rom. ii. ; see also Zra. i.) 


He hopes soon to send Timothy to them. 


19-24. But, though the worst may come to the worst, yet I hope 
Jor such a favorable issue in my case as will enable me to dispense 


II. 19, 20] HE HOPES TO SEND TIMOTHY 73 


with the services of Timothy here and to send him to you, in order 
that I may be comforted by hearing of your condition. For besides 
him I have no one likeminded with myself who will care for you 
with the same fatherly care. For they all are occupied with their 
own interests, not with the things of Jesus Christ. But Timothy 
you yourselves have proved; for you know with what filial devotion 
he served me in the work of promoting the gospel. I hope therefore 
to send him shortly, as soon as I shall have learned something defin- 
ite about my own case, but I trust in the Lord that I shall soon be 
with you in person. 


19. ἐλπίζω δὲ : The δὲ, ‘ but,’ offsets the possibility at which he 
has hinted in σπένδομαι, and which he knows is disturbing the 
minds of his faithful friends at Philippi. Mey.’s statement that 
there is an immediate change from a presentiment of death to a 
confidence of being preserved in life and liberated, is too strong. 
The εἰ καὶ σπένδομαι, etc., on its face, at least, merely contemplates 
a possibility. The words rather revert to i. 25. 


Lightf. and Lips. connect with vs. 12: ‘I urged you to work out your 
salvation in my absence, 4z¢ I do not mean to leave you without personal 
superintendence, and therefore I propose to send Timothy. The connec- 
tion, however, seems too remote and labored. According to Weiss the δὲ 
offsets the joy to which he has exhorted them with the means which he pro- 
poses to employ to obtain joyful news from them. 


ἐν κυρίῳ Ἰησοῦ: The sphere or element in which his hope 
moves, (Comp. 1.8, 14, iii. 1; Rom. 1x. 1, xiv. 14; 1 Cor. 1. 31, 
Vil. 29, εἴς.) 

ἵνα κἀγὼ εὐψυχῶ : ‘that I also may be of good heart.’ 

κἀγὼ: ‘I also,’ by the tidings which I shall hear from you, as 
you by the accounts of me. 

εὐψυχῶ : Not elsewhere in Bib. Gk. Εὔψυχος, -ws, -ia, in LXX ; 
1 Macc. ix. 14; 2 Macc. vii. 20, xiv. 18. 

20. οὐδένα yap ἔχω ἰσόψυχον : ‘for I have no one likeminded.’ 

yap: reason for sending Timothy. 

ἰσόψυχον : Only here in N.T. (See LXX, Ps. lv. [liv.] 13 [14]-) 
Supply μοὶ, not Τιμοθέῳ. Timothy was to be sent to minister to 
them in Paul’s stead. Moreover, the quality of Timothy’s care 
for them is just that which marks Paul’s care — γνησίως, ‘ naturally,’ 
‘by birth-relation,’ and therefore ‘truly’ or ‘genuinely’ ; with such 
a care as springs from a a/zura/, parental relation. In other words, 
there is no one who will care for them in a fatherly way as Paul 
does: . (See rgCor. ἵν. τς; τ Thess. 11. τα; Philem. to}; τ ‘Tim: 
i. 2; Tit.i. 4.) Timothy would have such a feeling for the Philip- 
pian Christians, since he was associated with Paul in founding 


74 PHILIPPIANS [11. 20-24 


their church. For γνήσιος, see iv. 3; 2 Cor. viii. 8; 1 Tim.i. 2; 
ὙΠ“: 


Lightf., Lips., Weiss, and others refer ἰσόψυχον to Timothy. 


21. of πάντες yap τὰ ἑαυτῶν ζητοῦσιν, ob τὰ Χριστοῦ Ἰησοῦ : ‘ for 
they all seek their own, not the things of Christ Jesus.’ 

oi πάντες : Collective ; the whole number in a body. (See Acts 
xix. 7; Rom. xi. 32; 1 Cor. x. 17; Eph. iv.13.) The statement 
is very sweeping, especially in view of the high commendation of 
Epaphroditus which follows. ‘The common explanations are that 
all who were likeminded with himself, as Luke, were absent at 
the time of his writing ; or that those about him were interested 
in promoting party interests, Gentile or Jewish-Christian. The 
Fathers attempted various explanations,—as that no one was 
willing to sacrifice his own quiet and security by undertaking the 
journey to Macedonia ; that they were unwilling to sacrifice their 
own honor and profit to the welfare of the church; or that the 
words were used only in comparison with Timothy’s exceptional 
zeal and fidelity. None of these help the case. Augustine and 
Anselm held to the full severity of the charge, maintaining that 
all the apostle’s companions were mercenary. Without more 
information a satisfactory explanation seems impossible. 

22. τὴν δοκιμὴν : ‘the proof’ or ‘approvedness.’ Used only by 
Paul, and meaning both ‘the process of trial’ (2 Cor. viii. 2) and 
‘the result of trial,’ as here, Rom. v. 4; 2 Cor. il. 9, ix. 13. You 
know that he has approved himself to you. 

γινώσκετε: Not imperat., for they had known Timothy in 
Philippi (Acts xvi., xvii.). 

ὡς πατρὶ τέκνον σὺν ἐμοὶ ἐδούλευσεν : ‘as a child a father so he 
served with me.’ Paul began the sentence as if he were going to 
write, ‘Timothy served me as a child serves a father’; but he was 
checked by the thought that both himself and Timothy were alike 
servants of Jesus Christ (i. 1), and also by that of his intimate 
and affectionate relations with Timothy. Accordingly he wrote 
‘with me’ instead of ‘me.’ 

εἰς TO εὐαγγέλιον : AS i. 5. 

23. οὖν : Resuming vs. 19; he being thus qualified. 

ws av ἀφίδω: Whenever he shall have definite reports to send 
them concerning his own fate. The ἀπὸ implies looking away 
from the present circumstances to what is going to happen, which 
will decide the question of his sending Timothy. 

24. πέποιθα δὲ ἐν κυρίῳ : See on i. 14; and with Paul’s language 
here comp. 1 Cor. iv. 17, 19. 

ὅτι καὶ αὐτὸς ταχέως ἐλεύσομαι : Expectation of speedy release. 
(Comp. i. 25.) 


n* ACP with several minusc. add προς υὑμας to ελευσομαι. 


11. 25] HE SENDS EPAPHRODITUS 75 


How soon Timothy or Paul himself may be able to visit them 
is uncertain, but he is sending them a messenger at once. 


25-30. Meanwhile, whether Timothy and I come to you or not, 
I send you a messenger at once—my brother and fellow-worker 
and fellow-soldier Epaphroditus, who came as the bearer of your 
gift to me. TI thought it necessary to send him because he was really 
homesick, longing to see you, since he feared that you would be dis- 
tressed by the report of his sickness. And very sick he was, so 
much so that it seemed as though he would die. But God was 
merciful to both him and me, and restored him and spared me the 
additional sorrow of his death. I send him therefore in order 
that his return to you may restore your cheerfulness, and that the 
sorrow of my captivity may be mitigated by your joy. Joyfully 
receive him therefore in the Lord. Such as he are to be honored; 
Jor he wellnigh died through his zeal for the work of Christ, haz- 
arding his life in order that he might render to me that sacrificial 
service of love which, uf it had been possible, you would gladly have 
performed in your own persons. 


25. ἀναγκαῖον : Comp. 2 Cor. ix. 5. Emphatic as contrasted 
with the possible visits of Timothy and of himself. I hope to 
send Timothy and to come in person, but I think it necessary to 
send Epaphroditus at once. 

ἡγησάμην : See on vs. 6. If this is the epistolary aorist, as is 
probable, it points to Epaphroditus as the bearer of the letter. 
(See Introd. v.) 

᾿Ἐπαφρόδιτον : Mentioned only in this letter. Examples of the 
name are common in both Greek and Latin inscriptions. (See 
Wetst.) It is not probable that "Ezadpdas (Col. i. 7, iv. 12) is a 
contraction of “Ezagpdditos. (See Thay. Zex. sub "Exadpas.) 
Win. xvi. says “probable”; Schmiedel, Rev. of Win. xvi. 9, 
“possible.” (See Lightf. Zztrod. and Comm.ad loc.) Even if 
the names can be shown to be the same, it is unlikely that the 
persons were the same. Eadie justly remarks that it is scarcely 
supposable that the Asiatic Epaphras, a pastor at Colosse and a 
native of that city, could be Epaphroditus, a messenger delegated 
to Paul with a special gift from the distant European church of 
Philippi, and by him sent back to it with lofty eulogy, and as 
having a special interest in its affairs and members. From two 
allusions in Suetonius (Vero, 49 ; Domitian, 14), a tradition arose 
that Epaphroditus was Nero’s secretary. 

ἀδελφὸν, συνεργὸν, συνστρατιώτην : ‘a brother,’ as a Christian ; 
‘a fellow-worker,’ in the cause of the gospel; ‘a fellow-soldier,’ 


76 PHILIPPIANS [1I. 25-28 


in the conflict with the adversaries of the faith. (Comp. Rom. 
SVL 3, 9, ἘΠ ΘΙ es Phil. 1.23/40). 5 Vignal. 7) 

ὑμῶν δὲ ἀπόστολον καὶ λειτουργὸν THs χρείας μου : ‘ your messenger 
and minister to my need. ; 

ὑμῶν : With both ἀπόστ. and Aw. A messenger from you and 
ministering on your behalf. 

ἀπόστολον : Not in the official sense, but a messenger sent on a 
special commission. So 2 Cor. vili. 23. 

λειτουργὸν : See on vs. 17, and comp. vs. 30. The explanation 
‘sacrificial minister’ (Mey., Lightf.), regarding the gift of the 
Philippians as an offering to God, is favored by iv. 18. Westcott, 
on Heb. 1. 7, observes that the word seems always to retain some- 
thing of its original force, as expressing a public, social service. 
(See Rom. \xv..27/3/2) Coram ae) 

26. ἐπειδὴ ἐπιποθῶν ἣν πάντας ὑμᾶς : ‘Since he was longing after 
you 411. Giving the reason for vs. 25. The participle with the 
substantive verb indicates a continued state. For ἐπιποθεῖν, see 
on i. 8. 


n* ACD add cde after buas. WH. bracket cde. 


ἀδημονῶν : Also with ἦν. Only here in Paul. (See Mt. xxvi. 
37; Mk. xiv. 33.) In LXX only in second-century revisions 
(Symm. Eccl. νυν]. τὸ; Ps. ον]. 11 [exv. 2], la. 2 [ix τ: ἢ: 
Job xviii. 20). The etymology is uncertain. Commonly from 4, 
δῆμος, ‘away from home.’ (See Lightf. ad loc.) 

27. καὶ yap ἠσθένησεν : ‘and (you were correctly informed about 
him) for he was sick.’ 

παραπλήσιον θανάτῳ : Ilapar. not elsewhere in Bib. ‘The adv. 
παραπλησίως, Heb. 11. 14. Here adverbially. Not precisely ‘nigh 
unto death,’ but ‘in a way nearly resembling death.’ 


ΝῈ ACDFGKL read @avatw; so Tisch., R.T., Weiss, 7:xtk. Unt. πο BP, 
31, 80, θανατου; so WH. 


λύπην ἐπὶ λύπην : ‘sorrow upon sorrow,’ or ‘ after’ sorrow, as we 
say ‘wave upon wave,’ ἐπὶ having a sense of motion. (See LXX; 
Ezek. vii. 26; Is. xxviii. 10, 13; Ps. lxix. [Ixviii.] 27.) Not the 
sorrow for Epaphroditus’ death following upon the sorrow for his 
sickness, but the sorrow for Epaphroditus’ death following that of 
Paul’s imprisonment. 


Weiss prefers the former explanation, for the singular reason that i. 12- 
24, ii. 16-18, do not indicate sorrow on Paul’s part for his captivity. (See 
Mey.’s ingenious note. ) 


28. σπουδαιοτέρως : ‘with the greater despatch.’ (Comp. Lk. 
vii. 4; Tit. iii. 13.) More hastily than I would have done other- 
wise. For the comparative without statement of the standard of 
comparison, see on μᾶλλον (i. 12), / 


II. 28-30] HAZARD OF LIFE FOR CHRISI’S WORK a7 


The older commentators render ‘ studiosius,’ ‘sollicitius.’ So A.V., ‘ care- 
fully’; R.V., ‘diligently’; Lightf., ‘with increased eagerness’; Ellic., ‘more 
diligently.’ Our rendering as Thay. Zex., Ead., Lips., Hack., Weiss, Weizs., 
Mey., v. Sod. 
ἔπεμψα: ‘I send.’ Epistolary aorist. 
iva ἰδόντες αὐτὸν πάλιν χαρῆτε: ‘that when ye see him ye may 
rejoice again.’ Construe πάλιν with χαρῆτε, not with ἰδόντες (as 
R.V.). Paul’s habit is to place πάλιν before the verb which it 
qualifies. The Philippians’ joy had been clouded by Epaphro- 
ditus’ sickness. They would rejoice again when he should arrive. 

ἀλυπότερος : ‘the less sorrowful.’ The sorrow of captivity still 
remains. ‘The word only here. 

29. οὖν : Since I sent him that you might rejoice, ‘ therefore ’ 
receive him with joy. 

πασῆς χαρᾶς : Every kind of joy. (Comp. i. 20; Eph. vi. 18; 
i Pet. 11. 1.) 

τοὺς τοιούτους : The article marks Epaphroditus as belonging to 
the class designated by rowovr. (Comp. Mk. ix. 37; Rom. xvi. 18 ; 
2 Cor. xi. 13, ΧΙ. 23; Gal. ν. 23, vi. 1 ; and.sée Win. xviii. 4.) 

ἐντίμους ἔχετε : The only occurrence of the phrase in N.T. In 
class. usually ἐντίμως ἔχ. 

30. ἔργον Χριστοῦ : All his exertions in forwarding Paul’s work 
in Rome, and the risk and hardship of the journey thither. 


Xpicrov, BFG, 80, Tisch., Weiss. 

tov Χριστου, DEKL, Vulg., Goth., Syr.seh, four Lat. verss. (d, e, f, g). 

For Χριστου, καὶ AP, 17, 3h 47) Cop., Syr.P, P, Arm., A‘th., WH., read κυριου. 

To epyov without addn. Ὁ 

Lightf. reads διὰ τὸ ἔ Zpryov on the sole authority of C, and says it must be 
the correct reading. He cites Acts xv. 38; Ign. Zph. xiv., Rom. iii., and 
the analogy of ἡ ὁδός, τὸ θέλημα, and τὸ ὄνομα for the absolute use of τὸ 
ἔργον. But while τὸ ἔργον is used absolutely in these cases, it is too much 
to assert, in the face of such strong MS. authority, that Χτοῦ, rod Xrod, or 
κυρίου are mere “insertions to explain τὸ ἔργον." Κυρίου might be substi- 
tuted for Χτοῦ in order to assimilate to 1 Cor. xv. 58, xvi. 10; and XY or 
KY might easily be overlooked and omitted in transcription, as by C. 


μέχρι θανάτου ἤγγισεν : ‘he came nigh unto death.’ (Comp. 
LXX ; Ps. cvii. [cvi.] 18, Ixxxviii. 3 [Ixxxvii. 4] ; Job xxxili. 22.) 
παραβολευσάμενος : Only here. A gambler’s word, from zapa- 
Bodos, ‘ venturesome,’ ‘reckless.’ He gambled with his life ; reck- 
lessly hazarded it. (Comp. Rom. xvi. 4.) A most generous and 
appreciative recognition of Epaphroditus’ services. The voluntary 
visitors of the sick, who, in the ancient church, formed a kind of 
brotherhood under the supervision of the bishop, were styled 
‘Parabolani.’ The graphic description of these in Kingsley’s 
ffypata is familiar. The word might have been suggested to 
Paul by seeing the soldiers throwing dice. Comp. «via, ‘ dicing’ 
(Eph. iv. 14). . 
TR with CKLP and several Fath, reads παραβουλευσαμενος, " having con- 
sulted amiss,’ 


Ι 


78 PHILIPPIANS [11. 30 


iva ἀναπληρώσῃ τὸ ὑμῶν ὑστέρημα τῆς πρὸς me λειτουργίας : “ that 
he might supply that which was lacking in your service toward 
me.’ (Comp..1 Cor. xvi. 17} 2° Cor. ix) /72:) 

ἀναπληρώσῃ : Not synonymous with the simple verb πληροῦν, 
‘to fill up a total vacancy,’ but denoting the making up of what is 
lacking to perfect fulness; the filling up of a partial void. So 
Erasm.: “ Accessione implere quod plenitudini perfectae deerat.” 
For double compounds of the verb, see 2 Cor. ix. 12, xi. 9; 
(ΟΙ. 1. 24. 

ὑμῶν : Genitive of the subject, with ὑστέρημα, not with Aeroupyias : 
‘the lack which was yours.’ 

λειτουργίας : See on vs. 17. It describes the service as the act 
of the Philippian community, and as a sacrificial act. So far from 
implying a censure in τὸ ὑμῶν ὑστέρημα, that clause is a most deli- 
cate, courteous, and sympathetic tribute to both Epaphroditus and 
the Philippians. The gift to Paul was the gift of the church as a 
body. It was a sacrificial offering of love. What was lacking, and 
what would have been grateful to Paul and to the church alike, 
was the church’s presentation of this offering in person. This was 
impossible, and Paul represents Epaphroditus as supplying this 
lack by his affectionate and zealous ministry. He thus, in this 
single sentence, recognises the devotion of Epaphroditus and the 
good-will of the Philippians, and expresses the pleasure which he 
himself would have had in their personal presence and ministry. 
Withal there is a touch of tender sympathy for Epaphroditus. It 
would have been a great thing if you could, as a body, have offered 
this sacrifice of love here in my prison; and poor Epaphroditus 
made himself sick unto death in his efforts to supply this want. 

πρός με: Πρός combines with the sense of direction that of rela- 
tion with, intercourse. (Comp. Mt. xiii. 56; Mk. ix. 16; Jn.i.1; 
Acts iti, 25, xxviii. 25; 1 Thess, iv. 12 ; Col. iv. 5 ; Hebe ἰχ. 20.) 
Their gift to Paul was a sacrificial offering to God, in which the 
spirits of Paul and of the Philippians communed. 


EXCURSUS ON VS. 6-11 


Much of the difficulty which appears to attach to this passage 
arises from the assumption that in it Paul is aiming to formulate a 
statement of the character of Christ’s mode of existence before 
and during his incarnation. This is inconsistent with the informal 
and familiar tone of the letter, and with the obviously practical 
character of this passage, the principal object of which is to enforce 
the duty of humility. As the supreme illustration of this virtue, 
the apostle adduces the example of Jesus Christ in his voluntary 
renunciation of his preincarnate majesty, and his identification 


II. 6-11] ON II. 6-11 79 


with the conditions of humanity. The points of the illustration 
are thrown out in rapid succession, merely stated and not elabo- 
rated, and are all brought to bear upon the exhortation, ‘‘ Look 
not every one at his own things, but every one also on the things 
of others.” Paul does, indeed, rise here above the level of epis- 
tolary colloquialism ; but the impulse to the higher flight is emo- 
tional rather than philosophical. MY 

I think that Lightfoot has fallen into the error just mentioned 
in his excursus on the synonyms σχῆμα and μορφὴ ( Commentary, 
Ρ. 127 ff.). Prior to the philosophical period of Greek litera- 
ture, the predominant sense of μορφὴ was “ shape”’ or “ figure.” 
Schmidt (Syvzon. 182, 4) says it is distinguished from εἶδος and 
idéa as the outward appearance of a thing considered in and for 
itself, and partially contrasted with the inner and spiritual being. 
It includes the coloring and the whole outward appearance — the 
body itself with no reference to other than outward peculiarities. 
This sense is retained to some extent in philosophical usage. 
Both Plato and Aristotle employ μορφὴ with this meaning (Plat. 
Repub. ii. 381 C; Phaedr. 271 A; Arist. Hist. An. i. 1, 7, li. 10, 
32) 

But the word has also a far wider meaning in Plato and Aristotle. 
Both apply it to immaterial things, and it is especially from Aris- 
totle’s usage that Lightfoot draws the meaning specific character 
for μορφὴ. That Aristotle uses it in this sense may be granted, 
though there are three things to be said on that point without 
entering into discussion: (1) That Aristotle, as has been said 
already, uses the word in the external and earlier sense also. 
(2) That his more abstract conception of μορφὴ is not uniform 
throughout, being more purely intellectual in his logic than in his 
physics. And (3) that even in his most abstract and immaterial 
conception of “form” the abstract is brought into concrete real- 
isation. His doctrine is familiar that sensible objects consist of 
matter and form ; matter being simply the potentiality of becom- 
ing, while form makes this potentiality actual, so that matter is 
not intelligible without form, though the form is not necessarily 
external or material. 

I do not, however, believe that Paul’s use of the term was 
derived from this source, or applied in the sense of “ specific 
character.” The starting-point of his conception lay nearer to 
the anthropomorphic than to the philosophic: not necessarily 
that he definitely conceived God as invested with a human form, 
but that he conceived of the essential personality of God as exter- 
nalising itself and expressing itself in some mode apprehensible 
by pure spiritual intelligences if not apprehensible by the human 
mind. But it seems probable that Paul’s mind touched the con- 
ception of “the form of God” very slightly and incidentally, 
and only on its outskirts, and that the application of the term 


J 


80 PHILIPPIANS [11. 6-11 


μορφὴ to God was principally a reflection of its application to a 
bondservant. Christ’s Awmifation was the dominant thought in 
Paul’s mind, and the μορφὴ of a bondservant therefore came first 
in the order of thought. The idea of some embodiment of the 
divine personality was not altogether absent from his mind, but 
μορφὴ θεοῦ was chiefly a rhetorical antithesis to μορφὴ δούλου. 

Still, there is evidence that Paul uses μορφὴ with a recognition 
of a peculiar relation of the word to the essential and permanent 
nature of that which is expressed or embodied, so that μορφὴ is 
purposely selected instead of σχῆμα, which signifies merely the 
outward and transient configuration without regard to that which 
is behind it. This has been clearly shown by Lightfoot in his 
examination of the compounds into which the two words severally 
enter. (See Rom. xii. 2; 2 Cor. ii. 18, xi. 13-15 ; Philo vine 
It is possible that in illustrating this legitimate distinction, Light- 
foot, in one or two instances, may have refined too much. His 
remarks on μεταμορφοῦσθαι in Mt. xvii. 2; Mk. ix. 2, are just, 
since a compound of σχῆμα, denoting merely a change in the 
outward aspect of Christ’s person and garments, would not have 
expressed the fact that this change acquired its real character and 
meaning from the divineness which was essential in Christ’s per- 
sonality. A foreshadowing or prophecy of his real “ form” — the 
proper expression of his essential being — comes out in the trans- 
figuration. He passes for the moment into the form prophetic of 
his revelation in the glory which he had with the Father before 
the world was. 

The case is more doubtful in Mk. xvi. 12, where it is said that 
Jesus, after his resurrection, appeared ἐν ἑτέρᾳ μορφῇ. It is pos- 
sible that μορφὴ may have been selected with conscious recogni- 
tion of the fact that, though the accidents of figure, face, and 
pierced hands and feet were the same as before, yet the indefin- 
able change which had passed upon Jesus prefigured his transition 
to the conditions of his heavenly life ; but it is quite as probable 
that the writer used μορφὴ in its earlier sense of “ shape.” 

However that may be, I cannot accept Lightfoot’s explanation 
of μόρφωσις in Rom. ii. 20 as signifying an aiming after or affect- 
ing the true μορφὴ of knowledge and truth. There was actually 
a truthful embodiment of knowledge and truth in the law. The 
law was “holy and just and good,” and Paul habitually recognised 
in it the impress of the divine character and will. It was this 
fact which aggravated the culpability of the Jew, to whom had 
been committed the oracles of God (Rom. iii. 2). 

Thus it is quite legitimate to define μορφὴ in this passage as 
that “ form,” whatever it be, which carries in itself and expresses 
or embodies the essential nature of the being to whom it belongs. 
(See note on vs. 6.) 

Μορφὴ, however, applied to God, is not to be identified with 


II. 6-11] ON II. 6-11 81 


δόξα, as by Weiss (Bid. Theol. § 103 ¢, d, Clarks’ Trans.). Weiss 
reaches this conclusion by a very circuitous and inconclusive pro- 
‘cess. He says: “The identification of the μορφὴ θεοῦ with the 
δόξα depends on this; that here also the δόξα, which the perfected 
attain to and which belongs to the glorified body of Christ (Phil. 
lil. 21), belongs originally to God, who is called (Eph. i. 17) the 
πατὴρ τῆς va and therefore, on that account, it belongs to 
the Son of his love in his original heavenly existence.”’ Δόξα is the 
manifestation, the “‘ unfolded fulness,’’ of the divine attributes and 
perfections, while μορφὴ θεοῦ is the immediate, proper, and per- 
sonal investiture of the divine essence. Aoéa attaches to Deity ; 
μορφὴ is identified with the inmost being of Deity. Δόξα is and 
must be included in μορφὴ θεοῦ, but δόξα is not μορφὴ. Indeed, 
the difference may be roughly represented by the English words 
“olory” and “form.” Glory may belong to one in virtue of 
birth, natural endowment, achievement, and the possession of 
great qualities ; but it does not belong to him in the immediate 
and intimate sense that his form does. 

A study of the usage, both in the Old and in the New Testament, 
will confirm this distinction. In the Old Testament “i533 applied 
to God occurs often in connection with theophanies, where, if 
anywhere, we might expect the peculiar sense of μορφὴ to appear." 
The passage which seems most to favor this view is Ex. xxxiii. 18— 
23, Xxxiv. 5-7. But it will be observed that in answer to Moses’ 
prayer that God will show him his gory, God promises to reveal 
his goodness, and to proclaim his zame, with the reservation, how- 
ever, which is put anthropomorphically, that Moses cannot bear 
that revelation in its fulness, and that therefore it will be tempered 
for him. In the sequel the Lord descends and proclaims “the 
Lord God, merciful, gracious, longsuffering, and abundant in 
goodness and truth.” This was what Moses desired, not, like 
Semele, to behold Deity clothed in outward splendor, but to 
behold the true glory of God as revealed in his moral attributes. 

The phrase “glory of the Lord” (mi “23) is used of the 
voice and fire on Sinai (Ex. xxiv. 17; Deut. v. 24) ; of the splen- 
dor which, on different occasions, filled the tabernacle and the 
temple (Ex. xl. 34; Num. xiv. 10, xv. 19, 42, xx. 6; 2 Chron. v. 
Τὴν, Vil. τῷ 2) 3-)Nazek.. x. 4, ‘xliti. 4,5, xliv.c4). It appears. asa 
bow in the cloud (Ezek. i. 28) ; as the glory which the prophet 
saw by Chebar (Ezek. iii. 23 ; comp. i. 4-28) ; in the fire which 
consumes the sacrifice on the altar (Lev. ix. 23). In the last three 
instances the mode or form of the revelation of divine glory is 
distinctly specified. It appears over the cherubim (Ezek. x. 19, 
xi. 22); on the threshold of the house and on the mountain 


11 am under obligation to my colleague, Dr. Briggs, for kindly furnishing me 
with a proof of the article 1,2: from the new Hebrew Lexicon, 


G 


82 PHILIPPIANS [11. 6-11 


(Ezek. x. 4, xi. 23). The earth shined with it (Ezek. xliii. 2). 
None of these exhibitions answer to the definition of μορφὴ θεοῦ. 
They are mostly symbolical. Again, the glory of the Lord will be 
revealed in a march through the wilderness to the Holy Land 
(Is. xl. 5) ; it will be the “rearward” of Israel (Is. lviii. 8) ; the 
resting-place of the Messiah will be glory (Is. xi. 10). The impos- 
sibility of identifying such expressions with μορφὴ θεοῦ will be 
seen if we attempt to substitute this for δόξα. Shall we say “the 
heavens declare the form of God” (Ps. xix. 1); “the form of God 
shall dwell in the land”’ (Ps. Ixxxv. 9) ; “the rest of the Messiah 
shall be the form of God” (Is. xi. 10)? These instances are fairly 
representative ; and the Old Testament furnishes no others which, 
any more than these, warrant the identification of μορφὴ θεοῦ with 
δόξα. 

In the New Testament the following may be specially noted : 
Jn. xvii. 5, 22, 24. Invs. 5, 24, Jesus speaks of his preincarnate 
glory which he laid aside in his incarnation. In vs. 22 he speaks 
of a glory which he had not relinquished, but had retained in his 
incarnation, and had imparted to his disciples. The two concep- 
tions cannot be identical. The μορφὴ θεοῦ was laid aside, and could 
not be imparted (Jn. i. 14). Δόξα was something which Jesus 
possessed in the flesh, and which the disciples beheld. It could 
not be identical with μορφὴ θεοῦ (2 Cor. iii. 18). Εἰκὼν approxi- 
mates more closely to μορφὴ θεοῦ than perhaps any other word 
in the New Testament. But δόξα here is not the same as εἰκὼν. 
The zmage of the Lord is attained by a process, through successive 
stages or grades of glory. (See Heinrici, Comm. ad loc.; 1 Cor. 
xi. 7.) Man is the image (εἰκὼν) and glory of God. The pre- 
incarnate Son of God was the effulgence of God’s glory, and the 
very impress (χαρακτὴρ) of his substance (Heb. i. 3). 

In short, it is apparent that δόξα is used with too large a range 
and variety of meaning to warrant its identification with an expres- 
sion which is unique in the New Testament, and entirely wanting 
in the Old Testament, and which, if the definition given be cor- 
rect, is strictly limited in its meaning. 

A common error of the Greek Fathers, adopted by Calvin, 
Beza, and others, was the identification of μορφὴ with οὐσώα, 
‘essence,’ and φύσις, ‘nature.’ Μορφὴ is identified with οὐσία, 
not identical with it. It is the perfect expression of the essence, 
proceeding from the inmost depths of the perfect being, and into 
which that being spontaneously and perfectly unfolds, as light 
from fire. If the two were identical, the parting with the μορφὴ 


in the incarnation would have involved parting with the οὐσία. 


But Jesus did not surrender the divine essence in his incarnation, 
nor did he surrender the divine nature, which is the οὐσία clothed 
with its appropriate attributes. Μορφὴ expresses both οὐσία and 
φύσις, but neither is surrendered in the surrender of the μορφὴ. 


II. 6-11] ON II. 6-11 83 


The Greek Fathers and Augustine, followed by the Catholic 
and most of the Reformed expositors, held that vs. 6 referred to 
Jesus in his preincarnate state; while vs. 7 and 8 referred to the 
incarnate Saviour. According to this view, Christ exchanged the 
divine mode of existence for the human, not insisting for the time 
on holding fast to his divine majesty. The form of God was 
voluntarily exchanged for the form of a bondservant. 

The majority of the Lutheran and rationalistic expositors, on 
the other hand, explained vs. 6 of the incarnate Son. According 
to this view, the form of God was retained by him in his incarnate 
state, and was displayed in his miracles and words of power. He 
retained the μορφὴ θεοῦ as his right, not regarding it an act of 
robbery when he claimed equality with God. Thus the statement 
was used to vindicate the divinity of our Lord in the flesh. This 
view shaped the rendering of King James’ Bible. 

But this is contrary to the entire structure and drift of the 
passage, the main point of which is Christ’s example of humility 
in renouncing his divine dignity and becoming man. The em- 
phasis is upon the humanity, not upon the deity, of our Lord. 
The prominent thought is “thought it not a thing to be grasped.” 
Moreover, this interpretation utterly destroys the manifest antith- 
esis οἵ οὐχ dpraypov ἡγήσατο, etc., and ἑαυτὸν ἐκένωσεν, which is 
indicated by ἀλλὰ. It makes the writer say, he maintained the 
form of God, du¢ emptied himself. It also weakens the sharp 
contrast between μορφὴ θεοῦ and μορφὴ δούλου. It would imply 
the contemporaneous existence of the same subject in two oppo- 
site forms, both having reference to the outward condition. (See 
Klopper, Comm. ad loc.) 

The doctrine of the preincarnate existence of Christ I assume. 
Statements like those of 1 Cor. i. 24, viii. 6, xi. 3, x. 3, 4; 2 Cor. 
vill. g, show that Paul held a real and not a merely ideal preéxist- 
ence of the Son of God, —a unique position of the preincarnate 
Christ with God. The truth is well stated by Professor Bruce 
(St. Paul’s Conception of Christianity, p. 330): “To make the 
conception of Christ’s earthly experience as a humiliation com- 
plete, is it not necessary to view it as a whole, and regard it as 
resulting from a foregoing resolve on the part of Christ to enter 
into such a state? Ifso, then the necessary presupposition of the 
Pauline doctrine of redemption is the preéxisfence of Christ, not 
merely in the foreknowledge of God, as the Jews conceived all 
important persons and things to preéxist, or in the form of an 
ideal in heaven answering to an imperfect earthly reality, in 
accordance with the Greek way of thinking, but as a moral 
personality capable of forming a conscious purpose.’”’ Similarly 
Weizsacker (Ap. Zect. p. 122), to whom Professor Bruce refers : 
“He had a personal existence before his human birth, and his 
earlier life was divine, and absolutely opposed to the dependent 


84 PHILIPPIANS (11. 6-11 


life of man upon earth. . . . Christ becomes man by a personal 
act. ... Precisely because of this the conception is perfectly 
consistent with the notion of ‘the second man’ who comes from 
heaven. For the heavenly descent is equivalent to the thought 
that he was in the form of God, and Paul can therefore say with- 
out hesitation, that it was Jesus, the Christ, who first existed in 
the divine form and then humbled himself, just as he says of him 
that he was rich and voluntarily submitted to poverty. Had he 
not given his doctrine of Christ this backward extension, the 
human life of Christ would have become for him a sort of imper- 
sonal event, and Jesus a mere instrument. His doctrine of the 
preéxistence accordingly enables him to look upon Christ’s work 
as a personal act, and to preserve the bond between him and 
humanity.” 

The phrase ἐν μορφῇ θεοῦ ὑπάρχων is then to be understood of 
Christ’s preincarnate state. ‘To say that he was ἐν μορφῇ θεοῦ is 
to say that he existed before his incarnation as essentially one with 
God, and that objectively, and not merely in God’s self-conscious- 
ness as the not yet incarnate Son — the ideal man. (See Beyschlag, 
Die Christologie des neuen Testaments, and Neutestamentliche The- 
ologie, 2 Aufl. vol. 11. p. 77 ff.; Pfleiderer, Paulinismus, 2 Aufl. 
p- 126; Bruce’s discussion of Beyschlag’s view, Humiliation of 
Christ, p. 431.) 

Do ἐν μορφῇ θεοῦ ὑπάρχων and τὸ εἶναι ἴσα signify the same 
thing ?>— “ No,” it is said. Equality with God did not inhere in 
Christ’s preincarnate being. He received it first at his exaltation 
and as a reward for his perfect obedience. Thus Dorner ( Christ- 
liche Glaubenslehre, ii. p. 286 f.) says: “ His manhood is raised 
to a full share in the divine majesty as a reward of its maintaining 
true obedience. He could not have been exalted if he had not 
exhibited a faultless development in a true human existence and 
obedience.” 

Along with this view goes an assumed antithesis between Christ 
and Adam. Dorner says: “While the first Adam grasped at 
equality with God, the second obtained exaltation to the divine 
majesty, since not only would he not assume the divine dignity, 
but, though himself elevated in dignity, humbled himself and 
became obedient even unto death.” The parallel is developed 
by Ernesti (Stud. u. Krit. Hft. 4, p. 858, 1848). Adam would 
be God ; Christ renounces his godlikeness. Adam suffered death 
as a doom ; Christ voluntarily. Adam incurred the divine curse ; 
Christ won the approval of God, and the reward of exaltation to 
equality with God. 

The same view is held by my friend and colleague Dr. Briggs 
(Messiah of the Apostles, p. 180). He says: “It was indeed 
involved in his existing in the form of God that he should be 
equal in rank with God. From that point of view it might be 


II. 6-11] ON II. 6-11 85 


said that he would not grasp after his own rank to which he was 
entitled as the Son of God ; but it is probable that the apostle had 
in mind the antithesis between the first and the second Adam 
which is so characteristic of his theology. He is thinking of the 
sinful grasping of the first Adam after equality with God under 
the instigation of the serpent. As the second Adam, he will not 
grasp after equality with God, even though it is his birthright. 
He will receive it from the hands of God as a gift of love, after he 
has earned it by obedience, just as the first Adam ought to have 
done.” Similarly Beyschlag, VV. 7. Zheol.2 Aufl. Bd. ii. p. 88. 

Setting aside for the moment the question of the two Adams, I 
do not quite see the consistency of Dr. Briggs’ first statement — 
that equality in rank with God was involved in Christ’s existence 
in the form of God, and his last statement, that equality with God 
was something which Christ earned, and received as a recompense 
for his obedience. The inconsistency is not reconciled by the 
antithesis between the two Adams. But passing this, these state- 
ments can mean only that the status of the preincarnate Christ 
was inferior to that in which he was after his incarnation; that 
the being whom Paul describes as existing in the form of God was 
something less than the being whom God highly exalted. This is 
clearly stated by Beyschlag (lV. 7. Theol. ii. p. 86): ‘The subject 
of this passage is not Son of God as in the so-called Athanasian 
symbol, but one sharply distinguished from God. ‘The μορφὴ θεοῦ 
in which he preeéxisted is not a μορφὴ τοῦ θεοῦ, and the ἴσα θεῴ 
εἶναι is not an toa τῷ θεῷ εἶναι. There remains between him and 
the one God who is the Father (vs. 11) so decided a difference 
that the incomparable glory which Christ won through his self- 
emptying and obedience unto death does not belong to him as 
his eternal, natural possession, but is given to him by God’s free 
grace, and must redound only to the honor of the Father. Hence 
ἑαυτὸν ἐκένωσεν Cannot signify a laying aside of his divine being, 
but only the laying aside of his mode of manifestation.” 

Such statements cannot be reconciled with passages like Col. i. 
15-17. Speaking of the Epistle to the Colossians, Dr. Briggs 
justly says: “It unfolds the doctrine of the preéxistent Messiah 
beyond anything that we could be prepared to expect from our 
study of the other epistles. To the doctrine of the form of God 
in the Epistle to the Philippians, we have added the doctrine that 
the preéxistent Son of God was the mediator between God and 
the creature, in creation, in providence, and in redemption” (JZes- 
siah of the Apostles, p. 215). Add to this Jn.i. 1, 2, v. 21, vi, 
x. 18, and especially Heb. i. 2, 3. In this last passage we have a 
more technical and formal statement, after the manner of the 
Alexandrian school, and according to this statement the preéxist- 
ent Christ was the very impress of God’s substance. 

Beyschlag, as Philo (De Somn. i. 39, 41), insists on the distinc- 


86 PHILIPPIANS [11. 6-11 


tion between 6 θεός and θεός, claiming that this distinction is 
observed in Jn. i. 1. But in that passage, θεός, predicated of the 
λόγος, is used attributively, with a notion of kind, and is thus 
necessarily anarthrous. It excludes identity of person, but em- 
phasises unity of essence and nature. Accordingly, what John 
says is, that the Adyos was with God, and that with no lower nature 
than God himself. Philo, on the contrary, claims that the anarth- 
rous θεός describes the λόγος as of subordinate nature — “ δεύτερος 
eds.” 

Dorner cites Rom. i. 4 to show that Christ was constituted the 
Son of God with power, only after his resurrection. ‘Therefore, 
before this, he was not ‘the Son of God with power,’ though he 
was already the Son (Chr. Glaudens/. ii. p. 284). But this infer- 
ence rests on a misinterpretation. “Ev δυνάμει does not belong 
with υἱοῦ θεοῦ, but is adverbial and qualifies ὁρισθέντος. Paul’s 
statement is that Christ was designated as Son of God in a power- 
ful, impressive, efficient manner, by his resurrection from the dead 
as a work of divine power. So Sanday, Mey., Godet, Alf., Moule, 
Gifford. (Comp. 2 Cor. xiii. 4 and Eph. i. 19.) 

Besides all this, how can equality with God be conferred or 
superinduced? The words are τὸ εἶναι ica. It is a matter of 
essential dezmg. Equality with God can belong only to essence. 
Equality of power or of rank can be conferred, but not equality 
of being. 

As to the antithesis of the two Adams. It seems forced at the 
best, but is there any real antithesis? According to the narrative 
in Gen. iii., Satan declared that the eating of the fruit would confer 
a knowledge which would make the eaters as gods, knowing good 
and evil; and the woman saw that the tree was to be desired to 
make one wise. Nothing is said of a desire to be equal with God 
in the absolute and general sense. The temptation and the desire 
turned on forbidden knowledge. The words “as gods” are defined 
and limited by the words “knowing good and evil”; and it is 
nowhere asserted or hinted in Scripture that Adam desired equality 
with God in the comprehensive sense of that expression. More- 
over, if Adam had proved obedient, his reward would not have 
been equality with God. 

~ Yet something was obtained by Christ as the result of his 
incarnation and of his perfect obedience therein, which he did 
not possess before his incarnation, and which he could not have 
possessed without it. Equality with God he had as his birthright, 
but his Messianic lordship was something which could come only 
through his incarnation and its attendant humiliation ; and it was 
this, and not equality with God, that he received in his exaltation. 
The διὸ of vs. 9 is not to be taken as if God bestowed exaltation 
as a reward for perfect obedience, but rather, as Meyer correctly, 
says, as “the accession of the corresponding consequence.” ‘The 


II. 6-11] ON Il. 6-11 87 


sequence is logical rather than ethical. Out of the human life, 
death, and resurrection of Christ comes a type of sovereignty 
which could pertain to him only through his triumph over human 
sin (Heb. i. 3), through his identification with men as their 
brother. Messianic lordship could not pertain to his preincarnate 
state. As Messianic lord he could be inaugurated only after his 
human experience (Acts ii. 36). Messianic lordship is a matter 
of function, not of inherent power and majesty. The phrase 
“seated at the right hand of God” is Messianic, and expresses 
Christ’s Messianic triumph, but not to the detriment of any essen- 
tial dignity possessed before his incarnation. But the incarnation 
places him, in a new sense, in actual, kingly relation to the col- 
lective life of the universe. There cannot be the bowing of every 
knee and the confession of every tongue so long as Christ merely 
remains deing in the form of God, — until he has made purifica- 
tion of sins, redeemed creation, and been manifested to earth, 
heaven, and hades as the Saviour of men. 

Thus new elements enter into the life and sovereignty of the 
exalted Christ. He exists no less as Son of God, but now also as 
Son of Man, which he could be only through being born of woman 
and made in the likeness of men. The glory of God shines through 
the bodily form which he carried into heaven with him (Col. ii. 9), 
yet in him dwelleth all the fulness of the Godhead. He is what 
he was not before his incarnation, the Great High Priest. Having 
begun the high-priestly work in his death and sacrifice, he now 
carries it on in the heavenly places by his work of intervention 
(ἐντυγχάνειν, Heb. vii. 25) in the lives of those who believe in 
him. He is the minister of the resurrection-life to his redeemed, 
ever bringing to bear on them through the Spirit the divine forces 
which cause them to “walk in newness of life.” Thus lordship 
won by conquest in incarnation is distinguished from inherent 
lordship. ‘This is the lordship which Jesus preferred to that 
which was merely inherent in him as the equal of God, — lordship 
through self-renunciation, mastery through service. 

And in this fact lies the answer to the much-discussed question, 
What is the name which God gave him at his exaltation? As the 
lordship is Messianic, as the Messianic lordship comes only through 
the human experience and victory, the name will unite the human 
experience and the Messianic dominion, —‘ Jesus’ the human 
name, ‘Christ’ the Messianic name. Not ‘Lord,’ for lordship 
was his inherent right and his prerogative before incarnation. 
Not Jesus alone, for that represents only the human experience 
of humiliation ; but JESUS CHRIST — Christ the Messiah only 
as he was Jesus. Accordingly ‘“ Lord” in vs. 11 is defined by 
“Jesus Christ.” 

This whole statement in Phil. is, in a broad sense, parallel with 
the words in Heb. i. 3, and the two passages should be studied 


88 PHILIPPIANS [11. 6-11 


together. In both the preincarnate Son’s conditions of being are 
set forth. To these Heb. adds a statement of the preincarnate 
activity of the Son. Φέρων is “bearing onward,” not simply 
“upholding”’ or “sustaining”; for, as Westcott remarks, “ the 
Son is not an Atlas sustaining the dead weight of the world.” 
(See Comm. on Heb. ad loc. and the striking parallels cited.) 
The Son was persistently carrying on from eternal ages the uni- 
verse of God towards its consummation. Incarnation and atone- 
ment were not a break in the history of humanity, nor in the 
eternal activity of God in Christ. They were in the line of the 
eternal purpose of God. The Lamb was “slain from the founda- 
tion of the world.” In pursuance of this purpose the Divine Son 
assumed our humanity, purged our sins, and then “sat down on 
the right hand of the majesty on high.” 

In Phil. the parallel to this is found in the statement and detail 
of Christ’s humiliation. In his human nature, in the form of a 
servant, in the likeness of men, in humbling himself and enduring 
the death of the cross, he is still bearing on all things, restoring 
humanity to the divine archetype by making purification of sins 
and inaugurating the High-Priestly function developed in Heb. 
In Phil. the mediatorial aspect is not treated, but both passages 
depict the exaltation which followed the humiliation. 

Whether ἁρπαγμὸν is active or passive is treated in the note. 
If taken actively, —‘‘an act of robbery,” “a seizing,’ —it ex- 
presses Christ’s assertion of equality with God ; that is to say, he 
did not think being equal with God an act of robbery, but claimed 
it as his right in his incarnate state. The awkwardness of regard- 
ing a state of being as an ac¢ of robbery needs no comment. If 
taken passively, —“‘a prize, a thing to be snatched or clutched,” 
— it expresses the surrender of the preincarnate state of majesty. 
He did not think equality with God a prize to be eagerly grasped 
(and held fast), but surrendered it, though it was his right. 

Lightfoot’s citations from the Greek Fathers show that they 
conceived the passage as carrying the idea of a surrender of 
preincarnate glory, and a condescension from a higher estate. 
(Note on “ Different Interpretations of οὐχ ἁρπαγμὸν ἡγήσατο," 
Comm. p. 133.) 


I am not convinced that Lightfoot’s interpretation is wrong by the 
strictures of Mr. Beet in his Commentary, ad loc., and in the Z£xfositor, 
3d ser. vol. 5, p. 115, especially when I find him adopting Meyer’s explana- 
tion. See below. 


It may be observed that Lightfoot does not bring out the full 
force of his first quotation, from the Letter of the Gallican church 
(Euseb. . Z. v. 2), which lies in the exhibition of the martyrs’ 
humility as shown in their refusal to accept the title of “ wit- 
nesses,’ which they had earned by their sufferings. Thus, in 


II. 6-11] ON II. 6-11 89 


refusing to insist upon their rightful claim, they imitated Christ, 
who refused to grasp at the majesty which was rightfully his. 
Also it should be observed that in Origen om Romans (Lat. v. 
§ 2), vapinam, which is given for ἁρπαγμὸν, occurs in both the 
active and the passive sense, the latter in late Latin. 

Meyer’s explanation should be noticed. He paraphrases: 
“ Jesus Christ, when he found himself in the heavenly mode of 
existence of divine glory, did not permit himself the thought of 
using his equality with God for the purpose of seizing possessions 
and honor for himself on earth.” 

He translates “ Nicht als ein Rauben betrachtete er das gott- 
gleiche Sein” (Not as a robbing did he regard the being equal 
with God), and then explains that he did not: put being equal with 
God under the point of view of gaining booty, as if it (being 
equal with God) was, with respect to its expression in action, to 
consist in seizing what did not belong to him. 

According to this, ro εἶναι ica is not the object but the subject 
of the seizing. Christ did not regard equality with God as a 
means of grasping. ‘This interpretation is adopted by Beet. It 
is an illustration of the excessive literalism which sometimes mars 
Meyer’s splendid exegetical qualities. The interpretation turns 
on the endeavor to preserve the active force of ἁρπαγμὸς, which, 
in the very ragged condition of the evidence concerning that 
word, seems desperate. If this had been Paul’s meaning, I can 
conceive of no mode of expression which he would have been less 
likely to choose. Moreover, the explanation misses Paul’s point, 
which is to show the magnitude of the renunciation from the 
preincarnate and heavenly point of view, and not from the earthly 
and incarnate side. According to Meyer, Christ’s self-renuncia- 
tion consisted in his refusal to grasp at earthly possessions and 
honors by means of his equality with God. According to Paul, it 
consisted in his relinquishment of heavenly glory and majesty. 

As regards ἑαυτὸν éxévwoev, any attempt to commit Paul to a 
precise theological statement of the limitations of Christ’s humanity 
involves the reader in a hopeless maze. The word ἐκένωσεν was 
evidently selected as a peculiarly strong expression of the entire- 
ness of Jesus’ self-renunciation, and in order to throw the pre- 
incarnate glory and the incarnate humiliation into sharp contrast : 
to show that Christ utterly renounced and laid aside the majesty 
which he possessed in his original state. Its most satisfactory 
definition is found in the succeeding details which describe the 
incidents of Christ’s humanity, and with these exegesis is com- 
pelled to stop. The word does not indicate a surrender of deity, 
nor a paralysis of deity, nor a change of personality, nor a break 
in the continuity of self-consciousness. Christ’s consciousness of 
deity was not suspended during his earthly life. He knew that 
he came from God and went to God; that he had glory with the 


90 PHILIPPIANS [ III. 1 


Father before the world was, and would receive it back. But he 
was made in all things like unto his brethren. ‘ He took to him- 
self all that belongs to the perfection of man’s being. He lived 
according to the conditions of man’s life, and died under the cir- 
cumstances of man’s mortality’ (Westcott). 


III. 1-3. A WARNING AGAINST FALSE TEACHERS 


As for the rest, my brethren, whatever your trials, past, present, 
or future, continue to rejoice in the Lord. I am not backward 
about writing to you concerning a matter of which I have spoken 
in former letters, but 7 am moved by my anxiety for your safety 
to refer to it again. Beware of those dogs; those evil workers ; 
those whose boasted circumcision ts no better than a physical mutt- 
lation without any spiritual significance. It ts we Christians who 
are the true ‘circumcision’ ; whose service ts prompted by the Spirit 
of God; whose rejoicing ts in Christ Jesus as the only source of 
true righteousness, and who do not trust the flesh. 


It is claimed by many that Paul is here about to close the 
epistle, but that his attention is suddenly diverted, perhaps by 
some new reports of the doings of his Judaistic adversaries ; and 
that he is thus drawn on to add to his letter what he had not 
originally intended. Nothing in the text warrants this conclusion. 
It is, of course, possible that fresh thoughts may have come to the 
apostle in the course of his writing; but, on the other hand, we 
are not forced to conclude that the main topics were not in his 
mind from the first. (See Introd. VII.) 


1. τὸ λοιπόν : ‘as to what remains.’ It may mean ‘finally,’ as 
2 Cor. xili. 11; or ‘henceforth,’ as ΜΚ. xiv. 41; 1 Cor. vis 29; 
Heb. x. 13; 2 Tim. iv. 8; or ‘ for the rest,’ ‘ besides,’ ‘as to what 
remains,’ as 1 Thess. iv. 1; 2 Thess. ili. 1. The formula is com- 
mon with Paul in cases where he attaches, in a somewhat loose 
way, even in the midst of an epistle, a new subject to that which 
he has been discussing. In 1 Thess. iv. 1 two entire chapters fol- 
low the phrase, and here the special subject introduced by it is 
followed by several others. If Paul had been intendtmg to close 
his letter, it is likely that he would have added his thanks for the 
Philippians’ remittance before he reached ro λοιπόν. The formula 
therefore merely introduces what follows. The preceding topic is 
closed, and he passes to another. 


‘III. 1] A WARNING AGAINST FALSE TEACHERS gI 


Ellic., Ead., Lightf., render ‘ finally,’ but as an introduction to what 
remains. ‘For the rest,’ Kl., De W., Lips., Weizs., Beet. 


χαίρετε ἐν κυρίῳ : ‘rejoice in the Lord.’ (Comp. i. 18, ii. 18, 
iv. 4, 10.) 

Not as Lightf., ‘ farewell,’ for which there is no sufficient ground. In 

class. the word is used as a salutation both at meeting and parting; but it 


does not occur in N.T. in the sense of ‘farewell.’ 2 Cor. xiii. 11 is more 
than doubtful. 


The exhortation need not be specifically referred either to what 
precedes or to what follows. There has been a reason for encour- 
aging them to rejoice in the face of their former trials, as there is 
a like reason in the prospect of coming trials of which he is about 
to speak. The summons to rejoice is general, in view of all trials, 
past, present, and future, as well as of the eternal consolations 
of the gospel. 

ἐν κυρίῳ : Comp. i. 14, 11. 19, 24. The sphere or element of 
rejoicing. 

Several of the older expositors found in ἐν x. a contrast of the joy in 

God with the bitterness of the cross (Calv.); or with all worldly things 

(Theo., Mop., v. Lyra); or with works of the flesh and fleshly renown 


(Ans.); or with the Jewish errors treated in the following verses (Calov., 
Croc., Pisc.). 


τὰ αὐτὰ γράφειν : The reference is probably to a former letter, 
or to former letters to the Philippians, which are lost. (See 
Lightf.’s excursus on “ Lost Epistles to the Philippians,” Comm. 
p-. 138.) This has been inferred from Polyc. ad Pai?. iii. (Comp. 
xiii., and see Lightf.’s Jenatius, iii. pp. 327, 348.) The question 
turns on Polyc.’s use of ἐπιστολαὶ, whether it means one letter or 
several. 

Lightf. decides for the single letter, and collects in his excursus a large 
number of passages to show the use of the plu. for ‘a letter.’ Mey. thinks 
that the plu. in Polyc. indicates several letters, and affirms that doctrinal 
epistles, both in N.T. and the Apost. Fath., are always described in the 
sing. where only one letter is intended, and in the plu. where several are 
meant. There can be no doubt that the plu. is used of a single letter in 


individual cases; but the question of usage is not definitely enough settled 
to warrant a decision. 


Our conclusion rests rather on the antecedent probability of 
lost letters. Considering Paul’s connection with so many churches 
during at least twenty-five years, it is highly probable that he wrote 
more than thirteen letters, and some of them important. Intima- 
tions of such are found in 1 Cor. v. 9; 2 Cor. x.10, 11; 2 Thess. 
lil. 15, i. 17. If what have come down to us are his only epistles, 
we must suppose that he wrote several letters within a short time, 
while at long intervals he wrote nothing. (See Jowett, Zs. of Sz. 
Paul, 34 ed. i. p. 107.) Lightf. refers τὰ αὐτὰ to matter in this 


92 PHILIPPIANS [1Π1. 1, 2 


epistle concerning divisions or dissensions in the Philippian church ; 
but intimations to that effect in i. 27, il. 2, 3, 4, are too slight to 
warrant this inference. The reference is probably to the character 
and work of the Judaising Christians. To refer ra αὐτὰ to χαίρετε 
(Alf., Weiss) would be to make Paul say: ‘It is not irksome for 
me to write to you to rejoice, but it is safe for you.’ 

ὀκνηρόν : ‘irksome’ ; orig. ‘sluggish,’ ‘slothful.’ (See Mt. xxv. 
26; Rom. xii. 11.) Frequent in LXX, in Prov. 

ὑμῖν δὲ ἀσφαλές : ‘and for you it is safe.’ “Aod. primarily 
‘steadfast,’ ‘stable’; thence ‘trustworthy’; a thing τ de relied 
on as profitable. Notas Luth., Erasm., with an active meaning, 
‘that which makes safe or confirms,’ which is contrary to usage. 

2. βλέπετε τοὺς κύνας : ‘behold the dogs.’ Βλέπετε, not ‘ beware 
of,’ which would be βλέπ. ἀπὸ ; but as 1 Cor. x. 18. A caution, 
however, is implied, ‘look to’; ‘look out for.’ The article with 
κύν. indicates a well-known class. ‘Dog’ was a term of contempt 
and loathing with both Jews and Gentiles. The dog was an unclean 
animal according to the Levitical law. The price of a dog and the 
hire of a courtesan were placed in the same category, and an Isra- 
elite was forbidden to bring either into the house of God in fulfil- 
ment of a vow (Deut. xxiii. 18). Gentiles were termed ‘ dogs’ by 
Jews (Mt. xv. 27). Comp. Apoc. xxii. 15, of those whose impurity 
excludes them from the heavenly city. In Hom. often of the auda- 
cious or shameless, especially women. The emphasis here is upon 
the impurity, the profane character of the false teachers contrasted 
with true Christians. There is no subordinate reference to shame- 
lessness, greediness, snappishness, disorderly wandering or howling. 
So some earlier expositors, as Chr., Aug., Calov., Calv., Croc., etc. 

τοὺς κακοὺς ἐργάτας : ‘the evil workers.’ The same persons 
regarded on the side of their activity and its moral quality; as 
proselytisers; as ‘huckstering’ (καπηλεύοντες) the word of God 
(2 Cor. ii. 17) ; as opposing the doctrine of justification by faith. 
(Comp. Mt. xxiii. 15 ; 2 Cor. xi. 3, 13.) 

τὴν κατατομήν : ‘the concision.’ Not elsewhere in Bib. The 
word directs attention to the fact that these persons had no right 
to claim circumcision in the true sense. Unaccompanied by faith, 
love, and obedience, it was nothing more than physical mutilation. 
Thus they belonged in the category of those against whom the 
legal prohibition of mutilation was directed (Lev. xxi. 5). Comp. 
Paul’s bitter sarcasm in Gal. v. 12. 

Reasons have been given for not identifying the persons charac- 
terised here with those referred to ini. 15-17. (See note oni. 15.) 
The reference here is to Judaising Christians. In view of their 
habit of keeping an eye on the Pauline churches and of introduc- 
ing their emissaries into them, it is not likely that they had over- 
looked Philippi; and it is quite probable that Paul had previously 
found it necessary to warn the church against their designs. Some 


III. 2, 3] THE TRUE CIRCUMCISION 93 


fresh intelligence of their operations may have prompted him to 
repeat those cautions. - 


Against the reference to Jews it may be said that Paul’s dealing with the 
Jews in 1 Thess. ii. 14-16 would lead us to expect something similar here if 
the parties had been Jews, since their proceedings against the Christians 
would probably have been marked by the open violence which they prac- 
tised against the other Macedonian churches. Here Paul’s warning is 
directed at the misleading of his converts by false teaching, which was quite 
according to the Judaising method. Moreover his expressions here are simi- 
lar to those in 2 Cor. and Gal. as respects the motive, object, and methods 
of these agitators, and the way in which he meets them. That the Judaisers 
were referred to in those epistles is not questioned. Their object was the 
overthrow of Paul’s form ‘of Christian doctrine and the establishment of a 
Christianity in which the Mosaic law should continue in full force, especially 
in the matter of circumcision. The Messiah was regarded by them solely 
in his relation to the Jewish law. The attempt of Croc. to show that Paul 
here designates three classes, — κύνας, Libertine Christians or backsliders to 
Judaism; κακ. épy., those who would combine Christianity with Gentile wis- 
dom or Jewish superstition; karar., unbelieving Jews, — is one of the curi- 
osities of exegesis. Weiss also thinks that three classes are intended: κύν., 
heathen; κακ. épy., those mentioned ini. 15; karar., Jews. 


3. ἡμεῖς yap ἐσμεν ἡ περιτομή : ‘for we are the circumcision.’ 
I call them κατατομή, and not περιτομή, for it is we who are the 
περιτομή. The contemptuous κατατομή suggests the first point of 
contrast between the judaisers and the true Israel of God. The 
abstract περιτομή, ‘circumcision,’ stands for the concrete, ‘the 
circumcised.’ (See Rom. iv. 9; Gal. ii. 9; Eph. ii. 11, and 
the phrase οἱ ἐκ περιτομῆς, Acts x. 45, xi. 2.) We are the true 
circumcision as compared with them, for their circumcision is 
only outward, in the flesh, while the true circumcision is that of 
the heart. (See Rom. ii. 25-29; Eph. 11. 11; Col. ii. 11 ; comp. 
Dev. wava..41 } Deut. χ. τό, xxx. 6; Jer: ν]. 10, ἰχ. 25, 26: Ezek. 
xliv. 7. See also Just. M. Dead. 77. xii., xix., xliii.) 

For this claim three reasons are given : 

(1) οἱ πνεύματι θεοῦ λατρεύοντες : ‘who serve by the spirit of 
God.’ A.V. ‘who worship God in the Spirit’ follows TR, which 
reads θεῷ for θεοῦ. 

πνεύματι : Instrumental dat. (See Rom. viii. 14; Gal. v. 5, 18.) 
Who serve under the impulse and direction of the divine Spirit. 
(Comp. Rom. il. 29.) 

λατρεύοντες : The verb originally means ‘to serve for hire,’ then 
simply ‘to serve.’ In N.T. both of ritual service, as Heb. viii. 5, 
ix. 9, X. 2, ΧΙ. το, and of worship or service generally, as Lk. 
i. 74; Rom.i.g. Especially of the service rendered to God by 
Israelites as his peculiar people, as Acts xxvi. 7; λατρεία, Rom. 
ix. 4; Heb. ix. 1,6. In LXX always of the service of God or of 
heathen divinities. A Jew would be scandalised by the applica- 
tion of this term to Christian service. It is purposely chosen with 
reference to ἡ περιτομή. 


94 PHILIPPIANS [111. 3, 4 


(2) καὶ καυχώμενοι ἐν Χριστῷ Ἰησοῦ : ‘and boast in Christ Jesus.’ 

καυχώμενοι: See Rom. ii. 17; 1 Cor. i. 21; 2 Cor xorg: 
Gal. vi. 14. 

ἐν Χριστῷ Ἰησοῦ: As the only source of true righteousness 
compared with the legal observance of the Jew. 

(3) καὶ οὐκ ἐν σαρκὶ πεποιθότες : ‘and do not trust in the flesh.’ 
Not the same conception as the preceding (so Chr., Theoph., 
Calv., De W.), nor is it a more precise definition, to express the 
purport of xavy. (Weiss). It indicates and repudiates the dispo- 
sition out of which the false boasting of the Judaiser proceeds. 
For πεποιθ., 566 1. 14. 

ἐν σαρκὶ : Comp. 2 Cor. xi. 18; Gal. vi. 13, 14. Σαρξ is the 
human nature without the divine Spirit ; the state cr man before 
or in contrast with his reception of the divine elernent whereby 
he becomes a new creature ; the whole being of man as it exists 
and acts apart from the influence of the Spirit. It properly char- 
acterises, therefore, not merely the lower forms of sensual gratifi- 
cation, but all,—the highest developments of the life estranged 
from God, whether physical, intellectual, or esthetic. So here it 
covers legal observances, circumcision, descent, ritual strictness, 
as they exist without the spirit of loyalty to God. (See W. Sz. 
on Rom. vii. 5.) 


In illustration of the statement that Christians have no confi- 
dence in the flesh, he adduces his own case, showing what excep- 
tional ancestral and ecclesiastical advantages as a Jew he renounced 
for Christ’s sake. 


4-7. If any man may think himself warranted in trusting in the 
flesh, tt is myself. For I was circumcised when eight days old, as 
a genuine Israelite. Iwas nota proselyte, but of direct Israelitish 
descent. I belonged to the honored tribe of Benjamin. Iwas a 
child of Hebrew ancestors who spoke the Hebrew tongue. As a 
member of the sect of the Pharisees, I was a strict legahst. I was 
zealous for my religion, even to the extent of persecuting Christians, 
and I was blameless in my legal righteousness. But all these advan- 
tages I counted as a loss, and renounced them for Christ’s sake. 


4. καίπερ ἐγὼ ἔχων πεποίθησιν καὶ ἐν σαρκί: ‘although having 
myself confidence in the flesh also.’ It might be urged that Paul, 
in his conversion from Judaism, had renounced and contemned 
that which he did not himself possess, and of which he did not 
know the value. He anticipates this by saying that he has 
renounced advantages which he possessed in an eminent degree, 
and the value of which no one knew better than himself. This is 


III. 4] CONFIDENCE IN THE FLESH 95 


not urged as an attack upon the Judaisers, but only to show that 
he had already possessed all that upon which the Jews especially 
prided themselves. He puts himself for the moment at the Jew- 
ish point of view. If the true ground of confidence is the flesh, he 
has stronger ground than even his Judaising adversaries. (Comp. 
2 Cor. xi. 21 ff.) ‘The apparent awkwardness of construction is 
owing to the quick transition from the plu. πεποιθότες to a similar 
participial construction in the singular (ἔχων). The ἐγὼ of vs. 4 
really lies in the ἐσμεν of vs. 3, since Paul reckons himself among 
the ἡμεῖς. He is separated by ἐγὼ. The sentence proceeds from 
καίπερ ἐγὼ, as if the previous clause had been, “7 have no confidence 
in the flesh.’ 

καίπερ: Only here in Paul, and, as usual, with the participle. 
(Comp. Heb. v. 8, vii. 5, xii. 17.) It may be correctly rendered 
‘although’ iff it is remembered that that sense lies in the parti- 
ciple and not in καίπερ, which literally means ‘ even very much.’ 

ἔχων : Not to be rendered ‘I might have,’ as A.V. and R.V., a 
translation which grew out of the fear of the older interpreters of 
seeming to commit Paul to a declaration of his confidence in the 
flesh. Paul actually possessed these advantages, and, from the 
Jewish point of view, declares that he had confidence in them. 

πεποίθησιν : ‘confidence’ or ‘ ground of confidence.’ The noun 
only in Paul. For the phrase πεποίθ. ἔχ., comp. 2 Cor, iii. 4. 

καὶ : In the flesh ‘ a/so.’ ΑΞ well as in Christ. 

Not only have I ground of confidence, but I have more than 
they. 

εἴ τις δοκεῖ ἄλλος πεποιθέναι ἐν σαρκί: ‘If any one is disposed to 
think that he has ground of confidence in the flesh.’ The indefin- 
ite εἴ τις is not introduced for the sake of policy, or in a concilia- 
tory way, as if Paul were avoiding reference to any particular 
case, since this assumes a polemic bearing of the words. Nor 
does δοκεῖ imply that the advantage was only apparent (Chrys., 
Theoph.), or that they had only arrogated it to themselves 
(Thdrt.) ; for Paul uses δοκεῖν of himself. He merely says that 
he possessed advantages on which any Jew might have congratu- 
lated himself. 

Δοκεῖ may be rendered ‘seems’; so Vulg. widetur; comp. 
1 Cor. xii. 22; 2 Cor. x. 9; Gal. ii. 9g; or ‘thinks,’ as 1 Cor. iii. 
18, viii. 2, x. 12. The latter is Paul’s more common usage. So 
here, ‘if any one is disposed to think.’ (Comp. Mt. iii. 9 ; 1 Cor. 
ΧΙ. τό. : 

ἐγὼ ἀντι Supply δοκῶ πεποιθέναι ἐν σαρκί. “1 think that I 
have reason for confidence in the flesh in a higher degree than 
they.’ 


The grounds of this last, general statement are now given in 
the enumeration of Paul’s advantages as a Jew, beginning with his 


96 PHILIPPIANS [III. 4, 5 


inherited privileges. First is circumcision, the main point in a 
Jew’s eyes, and that by which the whole nation was named. 


5. περιτομῇ ὀκταήμερος : ‘eight days old in circumcision.’ ’Oxray- 
pepos not elsewhere in Bib. It denotes here not interval, but dura- 
tion. ‘I was eight days old when circumcised.’ For the idiom, 
‘an eight-day one,’ comp. τεταρταῖος, Jn. xi. 39; δευτεραῖοι, Acts 
xxviii. 13; and see Wetst. on Jn. xi. 39 for a long list of class. 
parallels. ‘The dative is the dat. of reference. (See ii. 7; 1 Cor. 
xiv. 20, etc.; Win. xxxi. 6.) Paul was circumcised on the eighth 
day as a genuine Israelite (Gen. xvil. 12; Lev. xii. 3). An Ish- 
maelite was circumcised in his thirteenth year (Gen. xvii. 25). 

He was not a proselyte, but of direct Israelitish descent: ἐκ 
γένους “Iopand, ‘of the race of Israel.’ (Comp. Rom. xi. 1.) He 
was descended from the patriarch Jacob, whose name of honor, 
bestowed by God himself (Gen. xxxii. 28), was the sacred name 
of the Jews as God’s covenant people (Rom. ix. 4; 2 Cor. xi. 22; 
Eph. ii. 12), and was therefore the Jews’ especial badge and title 
of honor. Their descent from Abraham they shared with the 
Ishmaelites ; their descent from Abraham and Isaac, with the 
Edomites. The Israelite claimed descent from the patriarch, not 
as Jacob ‘the supplanter,’ but as Israel, ‘ wrestler with God.’ (See 
Hos. xii. 3, 4.) Ἰσραήλ is the appositive genit., and is the name 
of the race (γένος), as Gal. i. 14; 2 Cor. xi. 26. 

φυλῆς Βενιαμείν : Comp. Rom. xi. 1. Benjamin was the son of 
the beloved wife of Jacob (Gen. xxxv. 17, 18). The tribe of Ben- 
jamin gave Israel its first king (1 Sam. ix. 1, 2). The tribe was 

alone faithful to Judah at the separation under Rehoboam (1 K. 
xii. 21). After the return from exile, it formed with Judah the 
kernel of the new colony in Palestine (Ezra iv. 1). The tribe 
always held the post of honor in the army. Hence the battle-cry, 

- ‘After thee Benjamin!’ (Jud. v.14; Hos. v. 8). Of the twelve 
patriarchs, Benjamin only was born in the Land of Promise. The 
great national deliverance commemorated in the feast of Purim 
was due to Mordecai, a Benjamite. Paul’s own name, Saul, was 
probably from the son of Kish, the Benjamite king. 

But Paul’s descent was not only from the choice race and tribe, 
but from parents of the pure Hebrew stock. ‘There is a climax. 

Ἑβραῖος ἐξ “EBpaiwv : ‘a Hebrew sprung from Hebrews.’ (Comp. 

‘2 Cor.xi.22.) The Greek Ἑβραῖος (Lat. Hebraeus) comes through 
the Aramaic vernacular of Palestine (/7edrajaz). Greek and Roman 
writers, however, rarely used it instead of “Iovdatos ( /udaeus) which 
prevailed after the exile. In the O.T. ‘Hebrew’ was used habitu- 
ally and consistently to denote the descendants of Abraham as 
designated by foreigners, or as applied by the Hebrews themselves 
when addressing foreigners, or when speaking of themselves in 

‘contrast with other nations. ‘The name by which the Hebrew 


III. 5] A HEBREW OF HEBREWS 97 


nation habitually called itself was ‘Israel’ or ‘the Children of 
Israel.’ In the N.T. Ἑβραῖος appears in Acts vi. 1, where the 
native Palestinian Jewish-Christians are distinguished from the 
Hellenists or Greek-speaking Jews. ‘This distinction marks a dif- 
ference of language. The O.T. does not know the word ‘ Hebrew’ 
with reference to language. The old Hebrew is called ‘the lan- 
guage of Canaan’ (Is. xix. 18), indicating the close relationship 
of this Semitic tongue with that of the Canaanites, especially the 
Pheenicians. In the Apocr. and N.T. the term ‘ Hebrew’ is used 
almost exclusively of the Aramaic vernacular. (See Jn. v. 2, xix. 
τ 7 20; Acts. XXi.\40,. ΧΧΠ 2. ΣΧ ἡ TA.) Exere . the) term 
expresses the difference of language. Though a Hellenist, Paul 
was trained in the use of the Hebrew tongue by Hebrew-speaking 
parents. Though born outside of the Holy Land, yet as a child 
of Hebrew ancestors, and ‘the son of Pharisees’ (Acts xxiil. 6), 
in speech and habits of life he remained allied to the people of 
Palestine. He might have been an Israelite and not a Hebrew 
speaker; but he emphasises the fact that he was both a true 
Israelite and one who used the language of his forefathers. He 
was trained under a Hebrew teacher at Jerusalem (Acts xxii. 3) ; 
he spoke Hebrew, z.e. Aramaic (Acts xxi. 40, xxii. 2) ; and he 
quotes often from the Hebrew Scriptures. (See Riehm. Handw. 
des bibl. Alterthums, sub “ Eber” and “ Hebraer” ; Trench, Syz. 
ΧΧΧΙΧ.) 

Similar expressions, denoting position or character as resting upon birth 
from parents of like position and character, are common in class. (See 
Aristoph. Ran. 730; Soph. Zlect. 589; Philoc. 384; Eur. Ale. 677; Hadt. 
1.1.3; εἴς.) 


These four specifications of inherited privilege are summed up 
by Paul in Gal. ii. 15. Matheson, Spzrttwal Development of St. Paul, 
remarks that a man trained under such influences must, on every 
side, have been repelled by the spectacle of the cross of Jesus. 
He was required to accept him precisely at the point where his 
national characteristics were assailed (pp. 36, 37). 


He now passes to advantages of a distinctly personal character, 
relating to his theological and ecclesiastical position. 


κατὰ νόμον Φαρισαῖος : ‘as touching the law a Pharisee.’ (Comp. 
Acts xxii. 3, Xxill. 6, xxvi. 5.) 

νόμον : The Mosaic law, the standing authority of which was the 
principle on which the Judaisers insisted. ‘This is confirmed by 
θρησκίας, Acts xxvi. 5 ; by the allusions here to concision and cir- 
cumcision, and also by the fact that in all the words connected 
with νόμον in vs. 5, there is an immediate reference to the Jewish 
race and ideas. Moreover, δικαιοσ. τ. ἐν vou. corresponds with 

H | 


98 PHILIPPIANS [111. 5, 6 


similar phrases in Rom. and Gal. where the Mosaic law is contem- 
plated, as Gal. 11. 11, 12. It was the righteousness of the Mosaic 
system which Paul had abandoned for Christ. 


These considerations do not seem to favor Lightf.’s explanation, “the 
Mosaic law regarded in the abstract as a principle of action, being coér- 
dinated with ζῆλος and δικαιοσύνην." 

No sharp distinction can be fixed between νόμ. and ὁ véu. It is unquest- 
ionable that νόμ. is used of the Mosaic law as well as ὁ νόμ. If Paul 
sometimes uses νόμ. in a wider sense,— of law considered as a principle, 
with the stress upon the conception of law itself, rather than upon its 
historical and outward form,—the Mosaic law is habitually in the back- 
ground of his thought as the great embodiment and representative of the 
conception. 


Φαρισαῖος : Belonging to the party of the most orthodox defend- 
ers, observers, and expounders of the law. There may be a subtle 
irony in these words. Paul never ceased to reverence the law 
itself as the expression of God’s holiness (Rom. 11. 13, 20, ili. 31, 
vil. 7, 12, 14, etc.) ; but the Pharisees’ treatment of the law struck 
at its original dignity, since they made it void by the oral tradition 
with which they overlaid it. (See Mt. xv. 2, 3,6; Mk. vii. 3, 5, 
8, 9, 13; and comp. Jos. Amfg. xiii. 10,6.) Paul then may mean, 
‘I kept the law with Pharisaic strictness, practically dishonoring 
it ; observing the traditions rather than the law itself.’ From this 
point of view comp. Gal. i. 14. 

6. κατὰ ζῆλος διώκων τὴν ἐκκλησίαν : Ironical. “41 was so very 
zealous that I became ἃ persecutor of the church of Christ.’ Zeal 
for God, for his house, and for his law, was the highest praise of 
an O.T. saint. (See Num. xxv. 11, 13; 7 Koxix, 10, τὰ; Eerie: 
[Ixviii.] 9. Comp. Acts xxi. 20, xxii. 3; Rom. x. 2.) Thdrt. 
comments: οὐ yap διὰ τὴν φιλοτιμίαν, οὐδὲ διὰ δόξαν κενήν, οὐδὲ 
φθόνῳ βαλλόμενος, ὡς ᾿Ιουδαίων ἄρχοντες, ἀλλὰ τῷ ὑπὲρ τοῦ νόμου 
φλεγόμενος ζήλῳ, τὴν ἐκκλησίαν ἐπορθοῦν. ---- “ Not because of ambi- 
tion nor for empty renown, neither being smitten with envy like 
the rulers of the Jews, but being inflamed with zeal for the law, I 
persecuted the church.” 

διώκων : Used adjectively, parallel with ἄμεμπτος. Not as a 
substantive, as Mey., Weiss, Lips., which occurs with the article 
(Win. xlv. 7). 

δικαιοσύνην τὴν ἐν νόμῳ : ‘righteousness which is in the law.’ 
Δικ. is used abstractly, and then concretely defined by τ. ἐν vou. 
‘As regards righteousness ——I mean that which is in the law’: 
which resides in the righteous law and consists in its strict observ- 
ance. Δικαιοσύνη is used here in its objective sense of conformity 
to an external rule of righteousness. The righteousness is in (ἐν) 
the law, not in the man: in the man only as he conforms to the 
law. It is not regarded as an inward righteousness like the right- 
eousness of faith. Comp. ἐκ νύμου (vs. 9), where the righteousness 


III. 6, 7] ALL LOST FOR CHRIST 99 


is treated as proceeding from the law. ‘The reference need not be 
confined to the ceremonial law, for the law is a whole (Gal. iii. το). 
γενόμενος : ‘having become’: in the course of my pursuit of 
legal righteousness. 
ἄμεμπτος : See on ii. 15. Not absolutely blameless, according 
to God’s standard, but in human judgment. (Comp. Gal. i. 14.) 


On Holsten’s attempt to impugn the authenticity of the epistle by 
endeavoring to show in this statement a contradiction of Paul’s teaching 
elsewhere that man is unable perfectly to keep the law, see Introd. vi. 
The blamelessness here asserted is according to human, Pharisaic standards, 


7. ἀλλὰ ἅτινα ἣν μοι κέρδη : ‘but such things as were gains to 
me.’ 

ἅτινα : instead of the simple a, because of κέρδη : ‘things which 
were of such a kind that they could be called xépdy.’ It presents 
a category of the things specified in vs. 5, 6. See for this usage 
ical iv. 24; Vv. 19; Phil. u.-20:+ Col. il. 23. 

μοι: dative of advantage ; not of judgment, ‘in my estimation.’ 

κέρδη : ‘ gains,’ taken separately ; the profits of descent, of legal 
strictness, of zeal, etc., each attended with its own particular gain. 

ταῦτα : defining and emphasising κέρδη. 

ἥγημαι: ‘I have counted’: with deliberate judgment. (See on 
ii. 6.) 

ζημίαν : ‘a loss.’ The several gains are massed in one loss. 
The word only in this epistle and Acts xxvii. 10, 21. See farther 
on ἐζημιώθην (vs. 8). 


From his former experience he now turns to his present Christ- 
ian ideal and his efforts to attain it. 


8-14. Since the hour of my conversion my estimate of the worth- 
lessness of my legal righteousness and its profits has not changed. 
7 continue to count them all but loss as compared with the surpass- 
ing worth of the knowledge of Christ Jesus my Lord. To me they 
are mere refuse, if I can but make Christ my own and may be 
Sound living in him, not having a righteousness of my own, which 
ts of the law, but rather a righteousness which proceeds from God, 
which ts based upon faith, and which becomes mine through faith 
in Christ: a righteousness which means such intimate and prac- 
tical knowledge of Christ as that his risen life shall be a power in 
my life, and his sufferings shall be mine, even unto death; and 
that so, at last, if this may be, I may be raised from the dead as 
he was. TI speak of my desire, not of my attainment, for I have 
not yet realised my ideal; but 7 am pressing on toward the attain- 


100 PHILIPPIANS [111. 8 


ment and fulfilment of that which Christ contemplated in my 
conversion. No, I have not yet attained; but one thing I do. Not 
encouraged to self-satisfaction or relaxation of effort by what ἐς 
past, I stretch forward, like a racer to the goal, toward that high 
destiny to which God in Christ ts ever summoning me from heaven. 


8. ἀλλὰ μενοῦνγε καὶ ἡγοῦμαι: ‘nay then I am indeed also 
counting.’ 


BDFGKL read μὲν ουν; μενουνγε 8 AP, 17, 37. 


Μὲν confirms ἡγοῦμαι, and οὖν, strengthened by ye, recurs to 
ἥγημαι and carries it forward, thus guarding against a possible 
misunderstanding of the last statement. ‘ Nay then, if my ἥγημαι 
be thought to have been a mere impulsive ac¢ of breaking with 
the past,—I am, in truth, also counting all things as loss for 
Christ’s sake.’ His break with legal righteousness perpetuates 
itself. For μενοῦνγε see Rom. ix. 20, x. 18. 

Πάντα corresponds with ἅτινα (vs. 7): all things which formed 
the ground of my false confidence. 

διὰ TO ὑπερέχον THs γνώσεως Χριστοῦ Ἰησοῦ rev κυρίου pov: ‘ for 
the surpassing worth of the knowledge of Christ Jesus my Lord.’ 
This expands διὰ τὸν Χριστὸν, thus defining more clearly the 
motive of ἥγημαι ζημίαν. The ἥγημαι was caused by an over- 
powering impression of Christ; the ἡγοῦμαι by the knowledge of 
Christ. The ov in the next clause gathers additional force from 
γνώσεως. Τὸ ὑπ. τ. γνώσ. is not a hendiadys, ‘the exceilent know- 
ledge,’ as Vulg. ‘eminentem scientiam.’ The neuter participle 
with the article is more graphic than the noun ὑπεροχή. (See 
Blass, p. 151.) On substantivised neuters see Win. xxxiv. 2, and 
comp. Rom. ii. 4, viii. 3, ix. 22; 1 Cor.i. 25; Heb.vi.17. Γνῶσις 
is used in its original, simple sense, as Rom. ii. 20; 1 Cor. i. 5, 
viii. 1. Not in the later, philosophic sense. 

τοῦ κυρίου μου: κυρίου adds emphasis to τὸν Χριστὸν (vs. 7). 
For pov, with its sense of personal appropriation, comp. i. 3. The 
knowledge is surpassing because its subject is Lord, to be con- 
fessed and worshipped by the created universe (ii. 11). Christ, 
as the subject of this knowledge, is regarded with reference to all 
that he is or becomes to a believer. So Croc.: ‘‘Complectitur 
personam, officium et beneficium, quae separari non possunt.” 


The designations of Christ in the Epistles of the Captivity resemble 
those in the earlier letters. “Ingots alone occurs only in Eph. iv. 21; 
Phil. ii. 10. Χριστός and ὁ Xp. are very frequent. The title κύριος added 
to the personal name occurs chiefly in the beginnings of the epistles, as 
Eph. i. 2; Philem. 3; Phil. i. 2; but Christ is commonly styled κύριος or 
ὁ κύριος simply, especially in the formula ἐν κυρίῳ. In Phil. ὁ κυρ. 7u.’IX 
is not found. In Philem., which contains nearly all the formulas, the simple 

᾿ Xrés occurs only in vs. 6. 


΄ 


ihe cts has 


Wah. Gans 


III. 8, 9] ALL LOST FOR CHRIST IOI 


τὰ πάντα : collectively. (Comp. Rom. viii. 32, xi. 36; 1 Cor. 
viii. 6.) Accusative of reference. ‘I became loser in respect of 
all things.’ 

ἐζημιώθην : “1 became loser.’ The verb means ‘to fine,’ ‘to 
amerce,’ ‘to mulct,’ and is to be taken in its passive sense; not 
as middle or reflexive, ‘I have made myself lose,’ which is con- 
trary to N.T. usage. (See Mt. xvi. 26; Lk. ix. 25; 1 Cor. iii. 15 ; 
Bees vil, Os ΕΧΧ x, xxl. 22} Prov. xix!’ τὸ, xxii. 2.) The 
middle sense would ascribe ἐζημ. as an act to Paul himself, whereas 
the thought is that, having been grasped and possessed by Christ, 
his former possessions fell away. ‘The aorist points to the defin- 
ite period of his conversion. In that great crisis all his legal 
possessions were lost. 

καὶ ἡγοῦμαι : continuous present. (See above.) It may be 
regarded as dependent on δι᾽ ov (Mey., Ellic., Lightf.), or as a 
new point, and parallel with ἡ γοῦμ. πάν. ζημ. (Weiss). ‘The latter 
seems a little simpler, ἐζημ. having its motive in δι᾿ ov, and iva 
κερὸ. being the motive of ἡγοῦμ. σκύβ., thus contrasting the gain 
with what he threw away as worthless. On the other explanation, 
iva xepd. adds a motive to δι᾽ ov. 

σκύβαλα : ‘refuse.’ Only here in N.T. (Comp. LXX; Sir. 
xxvil. 4.) Belonging wholly to later Gk., as Plut., Jos. The 
derivation cannot be certainly shown. Suidas says κυσιβαλόν ; 
2.6. τὸ τοῖς κυσὶ βαλλόμενον, ‘that which is thrown to the dogs.’ 
More probably connected with σκώρ, ‘stercus.’ (See Curtius, G&. 
Etym. i. 167 [Eng.].) It signifies either ‘excrement’ or ‘the 
leavings of the table.’ A strong expression from the man who 
could write Gal. i. 14. Some of the patristic interpreters were 
embarrassed by this passage because the apparent disparagement 
of the law was seized upon by Antinomians, and used in their 
own interest. Hence they tried to modify Paul’s meaning by 
referring it to the comparative value of the law. The law was a 
light, but unnecessary after the sun had arisen. It was a ladder, 
useful to mount by, but useless after one had mounted. On the 
same line σκύβαλα was explained by the chaff, which is part of the 
ripening corn, but is thrown away in the threshing. (See Chr.) 

Χριστὸν Kepdyow: Appropriate Christ and make him his own, 
with all of grace and glory that attaches to him. Paul’s earnest- 
ness is shown in his reiteration: κέρδη, ζημίαν, ἐζημιώθην, πάντα, 
Χριστόν, etc. 


He proceeds to show what is involved in winning Christ. 


9. καὶ εὑρεθῶ ἐν αὐτῷ : For εὑρεθῶ, see on ii. 7. Often in the 
passive in the sense of ‘to be seen, discovered, or proved to be.’ 
(See Acts v. 39; Rom. vii. 10; 1\Cor. iv. 2; 2 Cor. xi. 12; Gal. 
ii. 17.) Here pointing to the recognition by others of Paul’s 


i) 


102 PHILIPPIANS [111. 9 


union with Christ. (Comp. Ign. #ph. xi.; 7 γαϊ, xiii.) By some 
commentators it is referred to the last day, either wholly or in 
part (see Lightf.) ; but the entire line of thought refers to union 
with Christ in this life. The final result appears in vs. 11. Calv. 
wrongly makes εὑρεθῶ active, and explains that Paul had renounced 
all that he had in order that he might find it in Christ. 

ἐν αὐτῷ : See on ἐν Χριστῷ Ἰησοῦ (i. 1). The same idea appears 
ini. 21; Gal. 11. 20: the state of identification with Christ’s life 
as the principle of salvation; the immanence of that principle in 
the human life. Comp. also Jn. xiv. 20, xv. 2,4, 5, 7, ἘΠ: 21, 
23. “The Christian,” says Weiss, ‘ exercises all the functions of 
his life in Christ. In him, or in fellowship with him, are rooted 
trust (Phil. ii. 19, 24), joy (Phil. iii. 1, iv. 4, 10), boldness 
(Philem. 8), Christian refreshment (Philem. 20). In him one 
speaks (Eph. iv. 17) ; executes his ministry (Col. iv. 17) ; enter- 
tains another (Phil. ii. 29) ; maintains unanimity with another 
(Phil. iv. 2); obeys another (Eph. vi. 1). In him one is 
strengthened, and can do all things (Eph. vi. 10; Phil. iv. 13).” 
— Bib. Theol. § του. Christ, the personified revelation of the 
divine love, is the ruling principle of the human personal life, so 
that this life moves in Christ as in its own peculiar element. To 
be in Christ is to have the Spirit of Christ and to be one Spirit 
with him (Rom. viii. 9; 1 Cor. vi. 17). See note at the end of 
this chapter on Paul’s conception of righteousness by faith. 

μὴ ἔχων : Expressing the mode, not the condition of being in 
Christ. 

ἐμὴν δικαιοσύνην : “ἃ righteousness of my own.’ Not ‘my own 
righteousness,’ as A.V., for no such thing exists; but a righteous- 
ness which might be described as my own. ‘ My own righteous- 
ness’ would be τὴν ἐμὴν dux. (Comp. Rom. x. 3.) 

τὴν ἐκ νόμου: Defining ἐμ. δικ. A righteousness which could 
be called ‘mine’ would be a righteousness ‘ proceeding from (éx) 
the law.’ He lays down a general proposition: Human righteous- 
ness is legal righteousness. It is contained in the law (vs. 6), and 
passes from the law to the man as the man obeys the law (Rom. 
x. 5). ‘The man’s righteousness is generated by its precepts. 

διὰ πίστεως Χριστοῦ : ‘ through faith of (in) Christ.’ Διὰ marks 
faith as the medium of attaining righteousness. (Comp. Rom. 
iii. 22 ; Gal. ii. 16; Eph. ii. 8.) For ‘ faith of Christ’ = ‘faith zm 
Christ,’ comp. ΜΚ. xi. 22; Rom. iii. 22; 2 Cor. x. 5; Gal. 11. τό, 
111. 223 12 Thess, di, ng 785: gece 

τὴν ἐκ θεοῦ δικαιοσύνην ἐπὶ τῇ πίστει : ‘the righteousness which 
is from God resting upon faith.’ A further definition of τὴν διὰ 
mio. Xp., describing its source and its basis. It proceeds from 
God, and is therefore in contrast with ἐμὴν dx. The phrase is 
not synonymous with δικαιοσύνη θεοῦ (Rom. i. 17), which signifies 
righteousness which is God’s ; which resides in him as his attri-. 


III. 9, 10] THE RIGHTEOUSNESS OF FAITH 103 


bute ; not, as commonly explained, righteousness which is from 
God, and is bestowed by him upon man. Δικαιοσύνη θεοῦ is of 
course assumed in τ. ἐκ Oe. dix. The ideal and the source of right- 
eousness are in God. God is the source of the atoning work of 
Christ which contemplates man’s righteousness, and Christ is ‘ the 
image of his substance’ (Heb. i. 3; see 2 Cor. v. 21, and Sanday 
on Rom. p. 162). As related to man, the righteousness of God 
rests upon (ἐπὶ) faith, “re (ry) faith which each man exercises 
towards God in Jesus Christ. ‘This is the only instance of the 
phrase ἐπὶ τῇ πίστει in N.T. It expresses διὰ πίστεως a little more 
definitely, and sets forth the only true basis of all human righteous- 
ness. It is, indeed, true that righteousness rests ultimately on 
God, and not on faith ; but if that is an objection, the same would 
lie against dix. ἐκ πίστ. (Rom. ix. 30, x. 6). Lightf., following Ril. 
and van Heng., renders ἐπὶ ‘on condition of.’ But Paul is here 
speaking rather of the essential character of this righteousness 
than of the terms on which it is received by men. It belongs to 
the nature of God’s righteousness as imparted to man that it rests 
upon faith (Rom. iv. 5). 

Lightf. refers to Acts iii. 16, though ἐπὶ there is a doubtful reading. 
WH. omit, with x* B. Tisch., R.T., and Weiss retain. 

Mey. supplies ἔχων, repeated after ἀλλὰ; ‘having on the ground of faith 
righteousness through faith,’ which is harsh and quite unnecessary. Equally 
awkward is the connection of ἐπὶ τῇ πίστει with εὑρεθῶ, as Weiss. Rather 
it is to be connected with δικαιοσύνην immediately preceding. The omission 


of the article before ἐπὶ τ. rior. has numerous precedents in cases where 
the whole expression represents one idea. 


He goes on to show in what this righteousness by faith consists. 


10. τοῦ γνῶναι αὐτὸν : ‘that I may come to know him.’ Taken 
up from the γνώσεως of vs. 8, and explaining it. Tod γνῶναι is the 
infinitive of design, setting ‘forth | the end contemplated in the 
righteousness of faith. For this ἃ: ‘usage see Mt. xxiv. 45; Lk. ii. 
24,27; Acts xxvi. 18; 2:Cor. x. 13; Gal. iii, 10; and Burt. 397; 
Win. xliv. 4 ὁ. 


Lips. and ΚΊ. codrdinate τοῦ yv. with ἕνα εὑρεθῶ, as representing, not 
the purpose of being found in Christ, nor the object for which Paul pos- 
sesses the righteousness of faith, but the #zode in which he desires to be 
found in Christ. But the dependence on what immediately precedes is 
most natural. In τὸν Χτὸν xepd. and εὑρεθῶ two elements are given which 
do not furnish a parallel to τοῦ γνῶναι, and Paul’s habit is to join two 
parallel clauses of design with a double ἵνα. (See Rom. vii. 13; 2 Cor. ix. 3; 
Gal. iii. 14.) The difference, however, is not important. Calv., Grot., 
Beng., make τοῦ yv. dependent on τῇ πίστ., describing the power and the 
nature of faith. But this construction with rior. has no parallel in N.T. 
The change of construction from ἕνα in vs. 9 to the infin. of design is not 
uncommon in Paul. (See Rom. vi. 6; Col. i. 9, 10.) 


For γνῶναι, see on i. 19. Paul’s end is, indeed, εἰδέναι, the 
absolute knowledge ; but he is here speaking rather of his coming 


a 


104 PHILIPPIANS [III. 10 


into a knowledge of the riches of Christ in the process of his 
experience. See Lightf. on Gal. iv. g ; and comp. Jn. vii. 27; 
t Cor. ii. 11; Gal. iv. 8,9; Eph. v. 5; 1 Jn. i. 18, 20. τ τὴ 
iv. 16. It should also be noted that, in N.T. Greek, γινώσκειν 
often implies a personal relation between the knower and the 
known, involving the influence of the object of knowledge upon 
the knower. (See Jn. ti. 24, 25 ; 1 Cor.ii. 8; τ] τ πὸ τὸ 
Jn. the relation itself is expressed by the verb (Jn. xvii. 3, 25; 
I Jn. 11. 3, 4, Vv. 20). Here, therefore, ‘that I may come to know,’ 
appropriating with the increase of knowledge. 


The two following details are involved in personal knowledge 
of Christ : 


καὶ τὴν δύναμιν τῆς ἀναστάσεως αὐτοῦ: ‘and the power of his 
resurrection.’ Καὶ is more than a simple connective. It intro- 
duces a definition and fuller explanation of αὐτὸν. Δύναμιν is not 
the power by which Christ was raised from the dead (Chr., Géc.), 
nor, as Theoph., “because to arise is great power”’; nor Christ’s 
power to raise up believers. Like the preceding expressions, it 
describes a subjective experience. It is the power of the risen 
Christ as it becomes a subject of practical knowledge and a power 
in Paul’s inner life. It is thus within the same circle of thought 
as Rom. vi. 4-11. (Comp. Col. iii. 1 ff.) The resurrection is 
viewed, not only as something which Paul hopes to experience 
after death, nor as a historical experience of Christ which is a 
subject of grateful and inspiring remembrance, but as a present, 
continuously active force in his Christian development. The 
beginning of the life of faith is a moral resurrection, a rising with 
Christ (Rom. vi. 5; Col. iii. 1), inaugurating ‘newness of life’ 
(Rom. vi. 4), —life in the Spirit (Rom. vii. 6), a life essentially 
identical with the ζωὴ αἰώνιος and ἐπουράνιος of the glorified Jesus. 
Comp. Eph. i. 19, 20, ii.5, 6 ; and see the very suggestive remarks 
of Pfleiderer, Paulinismus, ch. v. “The rising with Christ is put, 
not as an object of hope, but as belonging to the present, from 
the moment when ‘the spirit of him that raised up Jesus from the 
dead’ (Rom. viii. 11) takes up its abode in believers ; so that the 
rising with Christ is so far a fact as that for them a new life is 
opened (2 Cor. v. 15; Gal. ii. 19). Thus, equipped with the 
death-overcoming, spiritual life-power of Christ, they enter upon 
a condition in which they are enabled to overcome the power of 
sin in their members, so that sin shall not have dominion over 
them (Rom. vi. 13, 14; Col. iii. 5).””— A7épper. Thus the 
knowledge of the power of Christ’s resurrection appears as an 
element of the righteousness of faith. ‘This explains Paul’s phrase 
‘justification of ἄγε ᾽ (Rom. v. 18). ‘This knowledge includes the 
assurance of immortality. ; 


111. 10] FELLOWSHIP WITH CHRIST’S SUFFERINGS 105 


καὶ κοινωνίάψν παθημάτων αὐτοῦ: ‘and the fellowship of his 
sufferings.’ 


DFGKLP τὴν before κοιν. 


Som) 2\Cor, 1.5; ἵν. 10, τα ; Gal. vi.’ 1 3 \Col.1. 24.32 Pet. iv. 
13. A participation in the sufferings which Christ endured in his 
mortal life. (Comp. Heb. xii. 2, 3.) Such participation is involved 
in the knowledge of Christ. It is not merely ethical. It does not 
refer, except by implication, to the victorious power of suffering. 
Nor is a mere likeness to the sufferings of Christ intended. Like 
the knowledge of the power of the resurrection, the fellowship of 
the sufferings is involved in the mystical union with Christ, and is 
treated by Paul as a verification of this ‘at its hardest and most 
decisive point’’ (Weiss). Being in Christ involves fellowship with 
Christ at all points, —his obedient life, his spirit, his sufferings, 
his death, and his glory. The order of arrangement here is the 
_ true one. The fellowship of the sufferings follows the experience 
of the power of the resurrection. For the power of the resurrec- 
tion appears in justification of life; and the new life in and with 
Christ puts its subject where Christ was, — in that attitude towards 
the world which engenders contradiction, reproach, and persecu- 
tion. As Mey. truthfully observes: “The enthusiastic feeling of 
drinking the cup of Christ is not possible unless a man bears in 
his heart the mighty assurance of resurrection through the Lord.” 
One who is not under the power of the resurrection will not share 
Christ’s sufferings, because his moral attitude will not be such as 
to call out the assaults of the world. (Comp. Jn. vii. 7.) How 
this desire was fulfilled in Paul appears in the Acts, and in allusions 
in his letters. (See 1 Cor. iv. 10-13, xv. 31; 2 Cor. iv. 8-12; 
Gal. vi. 17.) Christ had said of him, ‘I will show him how great 
things he must suffer for my name’s sake’ (Acts ix. 16). 

συμμορφιζόμενος τῷ θανάτῳ αὐτοῦ : ‘becoming conformed unto 
his death.’ 


xe De EKL συμμορῴφουμενος. 
FG συνφορτειζομενος, ‘ being burdened together.’ 


The conception of fellowship with Christ’s sufferings is further 
unfolded to its last point—even unto death. (Comp. ii. 8.) 
Συμμορφίζεσθαι not elsewhere in Bib. The adj. σύμμορφος occurs 
ill. 21; Rom. viii. 29. The participle is in apposition with the 
subject of τοῦ γνῶναι. (Comp. Eph. iv. 2; Col. i. 10.) Not 
middle, ‘conforming myself to,’ but passive. The conformity is 
not ethical, as Rom. vi. 3-11, but is a conformity with the suffer- 
ings of Christ’s earthly life, even unto death. It does not necessa- 
rily indicate, as Mey., a distinct contemplation of Paul’s martyrdom. 
(Comp. i. 25, 26, il. 23, 24.) The thought is rather that of 1 Cor. 
XV. 31; 2 Cor. iv. το. (Comp. Rom. viii. 17.) The suffering of 


106 PHILIPPIANS [111. 10, 11 


this present time works together with all things for the good of 
those who love God (Rom. viii. 28) ; and such God ordained to 
be ‘ conformed [συμμόρφους ] to the image of his Son’ (Rom. viii. 
29). ‘The participle indicates the process of development. 

11. εἴ πως καταντήσω eis τὴν ἐξανάστασιν τὴν ἐκ νεκρῶν : ‘if Pos- 
sibly I may attain unto the resurrection from the dead.’ The words 
connect themselves most naturally with συμμορφ. τῷ θαν. αὖ., ac- 
cording to Paul’s habitual association of resurrection with death. 
Resurrection, physical or ethical, is attained only through death. 


Lips., without assigning any reason, and KI. for reasons which seem 
fanciful, connect with γνῶναι, 


For εἴ πως see Acts xxvil. 12; Rom.i. 10, xi.14. Much unnec- 
essary difficulty has been made over the apparent uncertainty 
expressed in these words, and the fancied inconsistency with the 
certainty elsewhere expressed by Paul, as Rom. viii. 38, 39, v. 17, 
18, 21; 2 Cor. v.1ff.; Phil. 1. 22,23. He elsewhere unease 
necessity of caution against a possible lapse from faith (ii. 12 ; 
1 Cor. x. 12; Gal. iil. 3, v. 4), and he takes the same caution to 
himself (1 Cor. ix. 27). His words here are an expression of 
humility and self-distrust, not of doubt. Weiss remarks that while, 
on the human side, the attainment of the goal may be regarded 
as doubtful, or at least conditioned upon humble self-estimate, on 
the side of the working of divine grace it appears certain. 

xatavrav: Only in Paul and Acts. In Paul, of persons, 1 Cor. 
x. II, xiv. 36; of ethical relations, Eph. iv. 13. In Acts always 
of places, except xxvi. 7. 


καταντήσω is aor. subj., as καταλάβω (vs. 12). El with the subj. is rare 
in good class. prose, but occurs in LXX, and is common in later Greek. 


(See Burt. 253, 276.) 
τὴν ἐξανάστασιν τὴν ἐκ νεκρῶν : 
KL, Arm., Cop., read ἐξαν. των νεκρων. So TR. 


᾿Ἐξανάστασις occurs only here in Bib. The verb ἐξανιστάναι is 
found Mk. xii.9; Lk. xx. 28; Acts xv. 5, but in neither of the 
passages of the rising of the dead. Why the compound word was 
selected instead of the simple ἀνάστασις, we cannot explain. Pos- 
sibly, as Mey., in order to give greater vividness to the image ; 
but this is far from satisfactory. Beng.’s explanation, that it is 
intended to mark the resurrection of believers as distinguished 
from that of Christ, is arbitrary and fanciful. ᾿Ανάστ. or ἐξανάστ. 
éx is found only three times in N.T. (Lk. xx. 35; Acts iv. 2; 
r Pet, 4°). 


Lightf. says: “The general resurrection of the dead, whether good or 
bad, is ἡ ἀνάστ. τῶν vex. (4.5. I Cor. xv. 42); on the other hand, the resur- 
rection of Christ and of those who rise with Christ is generally [ἡ] ἀνάστ. 


III. 11, 12] NOT YET PERFECTED 107 


[ἡ] ἐκ vex.” This can hardly be borne out. See Rom. i. 4, ἀνάστ. vex., of 
Christ, —so Acts xxvi. 23; I Cor. xv. 42, 43, ἀνάστ. τ. vex., of a resurrection 
which is in incorruption, glory, and power; Acts xvii. 31, ἐκ vex., of Christ; 
VS. 32, dvdor. vex. It is true that in every case where ἐκ occurs the reference 
is to the resurrection of the just, but three instances are not enough to build 
such a distinction upon. 


The reference here is clearly to the resurrection of believers. 
The question of the resurrection of the wicked is irrelevant ; and 
the idea of a reference to a spiritual resurrection while still in the 
body is entirely without support. 

12. οὐχ ὅτι: See on iv. 11. Supply λέγω, ‘I say not that.’ 
(Comp. Jn. vi. 46 ; 2 Cor. i. 24, ili. 5 ; Phil. iv. 17; 2 Thess. iii. 9.) 

ἤδη ἔλαβον : Ἤδη ‘now,’ marks the point of time at which all the 
past experience has arrived. ἔλαβον covers Paul’s entire past up 
to the time of writing. Its object is not expressed, but is all that 
is included in vs. 8-11. 


Lightf. is wrong in insisting that the aorist points to a definite past 
epoch, and translating ‘Not as though by my conversion I did at once 
attain.’ The aorist is frequently used to express duration extending to the 
present. See Ellic. on 1 Thess. ii. 16, and comp. Lk. xiv. 18; Rom. ili. 2; 
Gal. v. 24; Eph. 111. 5; 1 Thess. ii. 16. See also Beet, Expositor, Ist ser. 


i. p. 375, 6. 

The Lem of objects suggested for ἔλαβον is bewildering. A favorite 
one is βραβεῖον from vs. 14. So Chr., CEc., Theoph., Beng., Ellic., Mey., 
Fad., Beet, Ril. Meyer says that Bankicesv i is the bliss of Messiah’s king- 
dom, and that ἔλαβον is to be explained of his having attained in ideal 
anticipation(!); Beet, “the full blessedness of the kingdom of Christ for 
which he must wait till the resurrection from the dead.” But who could 
possibly have imagined that he Aad attained this? There is no reason for 
anticipating βραβεῖον. 


non τετελείωμαι : ‘am already made perfect.’ 


DFG add 7 76n δεδικαιωμαι. 


TereX. explains ἔλαβον more definitely, or puts literally what ἔλ. 
had put figuratively. “EX. regards the whole past as a completed 
act ; rer. the whole past gathered up in its relation to the pres- 
ent. The perfection referred to is moral and spiritual perfection. 
(Comp. Eph. iii. 17-19, iv. 13-16 ; Col. i. 28; and Ign. L£ph. ile 
Οὐ διατάσσομαι ὑ ὑμῖν, ὡς wv τι" εἰ γὰρ καὶ Semi ἐν τῷ ὀνόματι, οὔπω 
ἀπήρτισμαι ἐν Ἰησοῦ Χριστῷ : ‘I do not command you as though 
I were somewhat, for even though I am in bonds for the Name’s 
sake, I am not yet perfected in Jesus Christ.’ Comp. Phz/ad. v.) 
The verb is used by Paul only here, but is common in Heb. 

διώκω δὲ : ‘but I pursue,’ or as A.V., ‘ follow after’; better than 
R.V., ‘press on.’ The eagerness of Paul to attain his ideal is 
emulated by that of some of the commentators to bring βραβεῖον 
up into this verse. There is no need of supplying it with διώκω, 
nor need διώκω be taken absolutely. Its object lies in ἐφ᾽ ᾧ καὶ 


108 PHILIPPIANS [111. 12 


κατελήμφθην, etc., and is the same as that of ἔλαβον. The pursuit 
is no groping after something undefined, nor is it prpsecuted with 
any feeling of doubt as to the attainment of its end. Though he 
had zealously pursued the ‘law of righteousness’ (Rom. ix. 31) 
as a son of Israel, he was now pursuing the righteousness of faith 
with even greater zeal, under a mightier impulse, and with a 
clearer view of his goal. It is doubtful whether the metaphor of 
the race comes in here (as Ellic., Mey., Alf., Ead.) : κατελήμφθην 
does not suit it. Διώκειν is often used by Paul, with: 1t that refer- 
ence, for striving after the blessings and virtues of the Christian 
life. (See Rom. ix. 30, 31, xii. 13, xiv. 19,5 Cor, xiv. a 5 5 
v.15.) Instead of the idea of the race giving color to διώκω, it 
is quite as likely that διώκω suggested the metaphor in vs. 14. 
For διώκειν with καταλαμβάνειν, see Rom. ix. 30; J] XX; Sir. xi. 
10, xxvii. 8. 

εἰ kal καταλάβω ἐφ᾽ ᾧ καὶ κατελήμῴφθην : ‘if I may .0 grasp that 
for which I was grasped.’ 


Tisch. omits καὶ before καταλάβω with x* DFG, Syr., Ce , Arm., Goth., 
fkth. και is found in xe ABDKLP, Syr.2. So WH., R.T., /eiss. 


καὶ: ‘if I may not only pursue but aéso attain.’ For εἰ καὶ, 
see on ii. 17. For the progression from διώκειν to κιταλαμβάνειν, 
comp. Rom. ix. 30. From λαμβάνειν to καταλαμ., aid from τρέ- 
xere to καταλαμ., 1 Cor. ix. 24. Καταλαβεῖν is ‘to overtake and 
seize.’ (See. Jn. i..5, xi. 355) Rom: ix, so5nn Corsix, 27) 

ἐφ᾽ ᾧ καὶ κατελήμφθην : The divine grace in Paul’s conversion 
is the moving power of his Christian development The fulfil- 
ment of the ideal contemplated by Christ when he transformed 
him from a persecutor to an apostle is the goal whic} invites him. 
He desires to grasp that for which he was grasp: d by Christ. 
The aorist marks the time of his conversion, which τι 4s literally a 
seizure. Not, however, as Chr. and Thdrt., that Paul is conceived 
as running to destruction and pursued and seized by “Christ. 


To view his conversion as a seizure is not to deny the work of previous 
influences upon his mind preparing the way for the crisis of,the journey to 
Damascus. (See Pfleiderer, Paulinismus, inl. ; Bruce, δὰ Paul’s Con- 
ception of Christianity, ch. ii.; Matheson, Spiritual Development of St. Paul, 
ch. 11.» ill., —see especially pp. 46, 47.) 


Ἔφ᾽ ᾧ is relative to a suppressed antecedent, sai as Lk. v. 25, 
‘ that for which I was grasped.’ ‘ 
Weiss refers the relative to καταλάβω simply, and renders ‘ wherefore.’ 
So Lightf. Others, as Chr., Thdrt., Mey., Lips., make ἐφ᾽ ¢ = ἐπὶ τουτῷ 


ὅτι, and render * because,’ taking καταλάβω absolutely. Calv., ‘ quemad- 
modum, just as.’ 


Kai refers to ἐφ᾽ 6, adding the purpose of his being grasped to 
the assertion of his effort to grasp: ‘which I not only strive to 
grasp, but for which aéso I was grasped.’ 


111. 13] FORGETTING WHAT IS BEHIND 109 


The next .wo verses substantially repeat the assertions of 
vs. 12—the disavowal of satisfaction with his attainment, and 
the declaration of his strenuous pursuit of his spiritual ideal. 


13. ἐγὼ ἐμαυτὸν οὔπω λογίζομαι κατειληφέναι : ‘I count not 
myself yet to have grasped.’ 


ovrw, WH. [], Tisch., R.T., with s ADP, 17, 31, 47, 80, Cop., Syr.P, Ath. ; 
BDFGKL, VyJg., Goth., Arm., read ov. 


Both ἐγὼ and ἐμαυτὸν are emphatic, expressing strongly his own 
estimate of himself. (Comp. Lk. vii. 7; Jn. viii. 54; 1 Cor. iv. 3.) 
It is quite superfluous to introduce an implied comparison with 
the judgment of others, either of those who think too highly of 
him, or of th se who think too highly of themselves. Such an 
estimate, in ij:elf, is in strong contrast with self-righteousness and 
religious con: “it. 

λογίζομαι : “1 count’ or ‘ reckon,’ very often in Paul, and almost 
confined to ΠΣ epistles. Only four times elsewhere in N.T. The 
idea of a pro ess of reasoning always underlies it. 

ἕν δέ: Supply ποιῶ, not λογίζομαι, as Mey., for ἕν refers to what 
follows, whichis a matter of doing, not of reckoning. 


Others supply φροντίζω, μεριμνῶ, διώκω, οἶδα, λέγω. Such ellipses of 
the verb are common in Paul; ey. ii. 3, 5; Rom. iv. 9, v. 18; Gal. iii. 5; 
2 Cor. vi. 13. (See Win. Ixvi. 1 ὁ.) 


τὰ μὲν Oriow: ‘the things which are behind.’ The portion of 
his Christian Sourse already traversed. Not his experience as a 
persecutor of the church. With ra ὀπίσω, comp. τοῦ viv (i. 5); 
τὰ κατ᾽ ἐμὲ (1°12); τὰ περὶ ὑμῶν (i. 27, ii. 19, 20); τὰ περὶ ἐμέ 


(il. 23). °Ox’ yw only here by Paul. 


. 
The metap:; or of the race now first enters. 


ἐπιλανθανόμινος : “ forgetting.’ The word nowhere else in Paul ; 
sparingly in Synop., Heb., and Jas.; often in LXX. No special 
emphasis attaches to the compound. In class. it occurs some- 
times, but rarely, in the sense of ‘forgetting wi/fudly’ (Hdt. iii. 
147, lv. 43). But so also does the simple verb (Hom. JZ. ix. 537; 
Esch. Ag. 39). Not to be understood as if Paul were ashamed 
of what lay behind him in his Christian career, or as if he did not 
emphasise it 4s exhibiting the grace of God. (See 1 Cor. iv. 11- 
16, xv. 10; 2 Cor. xi. 23-xii. 6.) Rather that he does not use 
the memory of what God has wrought in him and through him to 
encourage self-satisfaction and relaxatioi. of effort. He is stimu- 
lated by the past to renewed energy in Christian self-development 
and in the building-up of Christ’s church. (See 1 Cor. ix. 19-27.) 


110 PHILIPPIANS [111. 13, 14 


τοῖς δὲ ἔμπροσθεν : The higher attainments in the Christian life. 
Only here. 

ἐπεκτεινόμενος : ‘stretching forward.’ A graphic word from the 
arena. The body of the racer is bent forward, his hand is out- 
stretched towards the goal, and his eye is fastened uponit. “The 
eye outstrips and draws onward the hand, and the hand the foot” 
(Beng.). The metaphor is from the foot-race, not from the 
chariot-race. Lightf. observes that of looking back would be 
fatal to the charioteer. ‘The word has passed into sporting lan- 
guage — ‘the home-stretch.’ *Ezex., nowhere else in Bib. "Exreé- 
νειν, often in Synop. with χείρ. (Comp. ἐκτένεια, Acts xxvi. 7; 
ἐκτενής, I Pet. iv. 8 ; ἐκτενῶς, Acts xii. 5 ; τ Pet. i. 22.) 

14. κατὰ σκοπὸν διώκω : ‘I press on towards the mark.’ 

κατὰ : Bearing down upon. xordv, only here in N.T. That 
on which one fixes his Zook. (Comp. σκοποῦντες, ii. 4.) In class. 
a mark for shooting at; also a moral or intellectual end (Plat. 
Gorg.507D; Phileb.60 A). In LXX; Jobxvi. 13; Lam. iii. 12, 
of an archer’s mark. It is not used in a technical sense of an 
appliance of the race course, as R.V. ‘ goal.’ ox) 

διώκω : ““εὐφαντικώτατα δὲ τὸ διώκειν εἶπεν. Ὁ yap διώκων οὐδὲν 
ἄλλο δρᾷ ἡ πρὸς ὃ σπεύδει, πάντα δὲ παρέρχεται, καὶ τὰ φίλτατα καὶ 
τὰ ἀναγκαιότατα." “ Most appropriately did he say διώκειν ; for he 
who pursues sees nothing but that towards which he is hastening, 
and passes by all things, the dearest and the most necessary” 
(Theoph.). 

eis τὸ βραβεῖον : Βραβ., only here and 1 Cor. ix. 24. The kin- 
dred verbs, βραβεύειν, ‘to be umpire,’ and καταβραβεύειν, ‘to be 
umpire against,’ ‘ to defraud of a prize,’ are peculiar to the Colos- 
sian letter. (See iii. 15, ii. 18.) βραβ. is not used technically of 
the prize in the games, the technical word being ἦθλον. Here the 
heavenly reward; the ‘crown of righteousness’ (1 Cor. ix. 24-- 
27; 2 Tim. iv. 8; Apoc. ii. 10) ; a share in the glory of the 
exalted Christ (Rom. vill. 17; 2 Tim. 11. το, 11). “(Comm 
1 655. i, 12; 1 Tim. vi. 12.) 

τῆς ἄνω κλήσεως τοῦ θεοῦ ἐν Χριστῷ Ἰησοῦ: ‘of the upward 
calling of God in Christ Jesus.’ 

The expression ἡ ἄνω κλῆσις is unique. The only analogous 
phrase in N.T. to βραβ. τ. ἄνω KA. is ἐλπὶς τῆς κλήσεως (Eph. i. 
18, iv. 4). The genitive of κλ. is the genitive of belonging. The 
prize is attached to the calling and involved in it. 


Lips. and De W. make the genitive appositional: ‘the prize which is the 
high calling.’ This would identify the calling with the heavenly reward, and 
would leave βραβ. without definition. 


ἔλνω means both ‘ above,’ local, as Gal. iv. 26, and ‘ upwards,’ as 
Jn. xi. 41; Heb. xii. 15. Here the latter. Comp. the striking 


111. 14] THE HEAVENWARD CALLING 111 


parall. in Philo, De Plant. oe. § 6. The whole passage is full of 
movement, onward and upward. (Comp. Col. ili. 2.) 


Most comms., however, make ἄνω = ἐπουράνιος, describing the guadity 
of the calling as heavenly. (Comp. Heb. iii. 1.) Mey. and Weiss say, 
‘because it issues from God in heaven.’ Why not then ἄνωθεν ? 


κλήσεως : The act of calling. Not that to which he is called 
(De W., Lips.). The word does not lose its active sense in N.T. 
It may include the original call of God to Paul, but it is not to be 
limited to that. God is continually summoning men upward in 
various ways. Nor does the expression suggest God as the judge 
of the contest, summoning the runners to the race (so some earlier 
comms. as Wolf, Rosenm., am E., Hoel., van Heng.). The geni- 
tive is that of the subject, that which offers the prize. God, in 
calling men upward, calls them to a heavenly reward. The prize 
is the object of ‘the hope of the calling’ (Eph. i. 18). 

τοῦ θεοῦ ἐν Χριστῷ Ἰησοῦ : Connect with κλήσεως. The calling 
is ‘of God,’ because God is its author, and ‘in Christ Jesus’ as 
the sphere or element in which it is issued and prosecuted. For 
the expression ‘called in Christ Jesus,’ comp. 1 Cor. vii. 22; 
a: Pet: ¥. τὸ: 


Mey. and Weiss connect with διώκω; but the position is against this. 


15-21. Let us, therefore, who, by our profession, are committed 
to this high Christian ideal of perfection, cherish this spirit of 
humble dissatisfaction with past attainments and of earnest striv- 
ing after all that is involved in our heavenward calling. And ff, 
in any particular, your ideal of the possibilities of Christian attain- 
ment and of your proper attitude towards these differs from that 
which 7 have held up to you, God will correct this by future revela- 
tions; but only on the condition that you act up to the ideal which 
you already have, and follow the rule which it imposes. Brethren, 
unite in imitating me, and carefully observe those whose conduct 
resembles mine. For there are many, of whom I have told you 
often, and now tell you, even weeping, that their conduct marks 
them as the enemies of the cross of Christ. The end of such ts 
destruction. Their god is their belly. Their minds are set upon 
earthly things. They glory in that which ts their shame. We, on 
the other hand, are citizens of a commonwealth which is in heaven, 
whence we await the appearing of the Lord Jesus Christ as 
Saviour; and when he shall appear, he will, by that power which 
_ enables him to subject all things to himself, refashion this body 


112 PHILIPPIANS [III. 15 


which belongs to our mortal state of humiliation, and fashion ti 
after the likeness of that body which belongs to him in his heavenly 


glory. 


The exhortation of vs. 15, 16 shows the effect of the strong 
emotion which pervades the preceding passage. The general 
sense is clear, and becomes embarrassing only when the attempt 
is made to adjust all its parts and their connection according to 
rigid rhetorical rules. The apostle has just held up his own lofty 
ideal of Christian character. He has disclaimed the having at- 
tained it, because its transcendent greatness will not allow him to 
be satisfied with past attainments, and only stimulates him to more 
strenuous effort. In this attitude of humility and aspiring exer- 
tion, he exhorts his readers to imitate him. At the same time, he 
recognises the possibility that their ideal of Christian perfection 
may differ from his own in some particulars, and be lower than 
his own, in which case God will correct the defect by future reve- 
lations. But the condition of such revelations is, that they practi- 
cally carry out their own ideals, such as they are, and live strictly 
according to the rule of conduct which they impose. 


15. ὅσοι οὖν τέλειοι, τοῦτο φρονῶμεν : ‘Let as many of us there- 
fore as are perfect be thus minded.’ Paul here includes himself 
among the τέλειοι, although in vs. 12 he has said οὐχ ἤδη τετελεί- 
wyuot. Evidently the two expressions are not used in the same 
sense. In vs. 12 he is speaking of adsolute perfection, such as 
would relieve him of the necessity of further striving. In τέλειοι 
he is speaking of ve/ative perfection. (Comp. Mt. v. 48.) Τέλειος 
has two senses in the N.T.: 1. ‘ full-grown,’ ‘ mature,’ in contrast 
with childish ignorance and weakness, as 1 Cor. ii. 6, xiv. 20; 
Heb. v. 14. 2. Absolutely, as Mtv. 48; Jas. 1. 4, 111... 2. Ὑεῖ, 
in this absolute usage, there is a distinction which is illustrated in 

“Mt. v. 48. As used there of the absolute perfection of God, it 
cannot be used of the perfection which is enjoined by Jesus upon 
men. That perfection is relative. Similarly here, the ideal con- 
dition is ascribed to those who are, by their profession, committed 
to it as their own ideal, just as ἅγιοι is used of those who are, 
though not absolutely holy, yet consecrated to the holy God. As 
Rilliet remarks, “The word meaning what ought to be is taken by 
concession to mean what is, evidently with the intention of attach- 
ing the reality to the ideal, and of recalling to believers the obli- 
gations involved in the title.” Τέλειοι here is, therefore, a general 
designation of the Christian condition in all its aspects, not, as 


III. 15] DO NOT CEASE TO STRIVE 113 


Lips., with reference only to Christian knowledge. It is the same, 
practically, as πνευματικοί (1 Cor. ili. 1; Gal. vi. 1). It does not 
imply any special contrast, as with weaker brethren, Judaisers, 
indifferentists, etc., nor is there any reason for attributing to it an 
ironical sense, as Lightf., who compares 1 Cor. viii. 1. 


Alf., Mey., Lightf., Ead., Beet, explain τέλειοι as ‘ mature,’ ‘advanced in 
Christian experience.’ 


τοῦτο φρονῶμεν : For dpov., see on i. 7. A more delicate quality 
is given to the exhortation by Paul’s associating himself with his 
readers. (Comp. Rom. v. 1.) 

The zmmediate reference of τοῦτο is to vs. 13, 14. Let us 
beware of thinking that our attainment is such as to make further 
striving unnecessary. ‘Let us rather cherish that humble self- 
estimate which shall stimulate us to press toward the mark for 
the prize of our heavenward calling.’ Nevertheless we cannot 
entirely separate these two verses from the whole representation 
of the Christian ideal from vs. 7. To have such an estimate of 
the greatness of the future as to forget the past, to have such a 
sense of the magnitude of the prize as to be constantly dissatisfied 
with former attainments and to be ever pressing on to something 
higher, to have such an ideal of Christ as to make one constantly 
feel his own littleness and insufficiency, — implies knowing Christ, 
being found in Christ, the casting aside of human righteousness, 
and such knowledge of the eternal possibilities of life in Christ as 
can be obtained only through mystical union with him. 

καὶ εἴ τι ἑτέρως φρονεῖτε: Ki with the indicative implies a case 
which is quite supposable. “Erépws, only here in N.T. ‘ Other- 
wise’ than what? The point of comparison must not be too 
rigidly fixed at any detail of the context, such as the humble self- 
estimate and the earnest striving, or the great fundamental ele- 
ments of Christian life, such as having the righteousness of faith, 
or being found in Christ; for ἑτέρως would express too feebly 
differences on points so vital, and Paul would have met such with 
something more than the promise of further revelations. The 
reference is loose, and concerns mor points in the character- 
istics of the τέλειοι generally considered. It was entirely possible 
that many of his readers, although having a genuine faith in Christ, 
and fully accepting the doctrine of justification by faith, might 
not have apprehended his profound views of mystical union, or 
have had the same clear ideas as himself concerning certain prac- 
tical applications of doctrine; even that they might not have felt 
the impulse to higher spiritual attainment in its full stringency, 
and might have been inclined to regard his conduct and senti- 
ments in certain particulars as exaggerated. Such facts are famil- 
iar to every Christian pastor. In the first Corinthian letter Paul 
insists on the unity of the body of Christ and the sin and danger 

I 


114 PHILIPPIANS [111. 15, 16 


of breaking it. Yet there were those in that church, many of 
them, no doubt, sincere and earnest believers, who did not grasp 
the application of this truth to the question of eating idol-meats. 
The force of φρονεῖτε should be carefully noted. It has been 
shown (ch. i. 7) that φρονεῖν signifies the general disposition of 
mind rather than the specific act of thought; and its use here 
shows that the apostle is not dealing specially, if at all, with differ- 
ences of opinion, but rather with dispositions which underlie the 
spiritual life. The differences concern form, point of emphasis, 
extent of application, rather than substance or subject-matter. 


Lightf. explains, ‘if progress be your rule, though you are at fau/t on 
any subject, God will reveal this also to you’; translating ἑτέρως ‘amiss.’ 
So Ril. and Lum. There is classical precedent for this meaning, but it is 
entirely unknown in N.T. 


kat τοῦτο : ‘this also’; in addition to what God has already 
revealed. Τοῦτο refers to τι ; ‘this,’ whatever it be, in which you 
may be otherwise minded. Not, ‘shall reveal that you are wrong, 
and that I am right’ ((Ec., Calv., Grot.), nor ‘shall show whether 
you are right or I’ (Ew.), nor identical with the preceding τοῦτο 
(Beng.). 

ἀποκαλύψει : ᾿Αποκαλύπτειν is to unveil something that is hidden, 
thus giving light and knowledge. (See Gal. i. 16, iii. 23; Eph. 
ili. 5.) Hence, of God’s giving to his servants insight into divine 
truth (Mt. xi. 25, 27, xvi. 17; 1 Cor. ii. 10, xiv. 30. See West- 
cott, /ntrod. to the Study of the Gospels, p. 9 ; Trench, Sym. xciv.). 
Paul here means a revelation by the indwelling Spirit of God 
(comp. 1 Cor. ii. 10-16), either directly or through apostolic 
teaching, experience, or other means. 

16. πλὴν : ‘nevertheless’; ‘notwithstanding.’ (Comp. i. 18.) 
Though there may be things concerning which you need further 
revelation, ‘nevertheless,’ the condition of your receiving this is 
your walking according to your present attainment of light and 
knowledge. 

εἰς ὃ: ‘whereunto’; to whatever divinely revealed knowledge. 
Thus ὃ carries on the thought of ἀποκαλύψει. You need further 
revelation, nevertheless, walk according to such revelation as you 
have received. Notice the καὶ before τοῦτο (vs. 15), implying 
previous revelation. 

ἐφθάσαμεν: ‘we have attained.’ The verb means, primarily, 
‘to come before,’ ‘to anticipate,’ as 1 Thess. iv. 15. In N.T. it 
mostly loses the sense of anticipation, and signifies simply ‘to 
come’ or ‘arrive at,’ though occasionally with a sense of sudden- 
ness or surprise, as Mt. xii. 28 ; 1 Thess. ii. τό. 

τῷ αὐτῷ στοιχεῖν : ‘by that same walk.’ That same knowledge 
already revealed. For the dative of the norm or standard, see 
Acts xv. 1; Gal. v. 16, 25, vi. 16; Win, xxxi. 6 ὁ. 


IIT. 16, 17] IMITATE HOLY EXAMPLES 115 


Στοιχεῖν from στοίχος, ‘a row.’ Hence ‘ to walk zz Zine.’ (Comp. 
Acts xxi. 24; Gal. vi. 16.) ‘To march in battle-order’ (Xen. 
Cyr. vi. 3, 34). Comp. συνστοιχεῖ (Gal. iv. 25), ‘answereth to ;’ 
z.e. belongs to the same row or column with. Hence the letters 
of the alphabet were called στοιχεία, and also the elements or 
parts of asystem. (See Gal. iv. 3,9; Col. ii. 8; 2 Pet. iii. 10.) 

The infin. here for the imperat., as Rom. xii. 15. 


TR. after στοιχεῖν adds kavov To auto φρονειν with x® KLP, Syr.¥; this 
was inserted from Gal. vi. 16; DEFG, 31, 37, 80, It., Vulg., Goth., Arm., read 
To αὐτο φρονειν τω αντω στοιχειν; De Εἰ, Vulg., Goth., Arm., add κανονι. 


Alf., Mey., Dw., refer εἰς 6 to the grade of moral and spiritual progress 
already attained. But this involves an awkwardness in the correlation of 
eis ὃ and τῷ αὐτῷ. ‘Els ὃ in that case would imply a common point of 
attainment which it is impossible to determine, and which does not agree 
with ἑτέρως φρονεῖτε. Lightf. explains τῷ αὐτῷ as the rule of faith opposed 
to works, and thinks that the words were added as a parting caution against 
‘the dogs,’ ‘the concision,’ etc. He renders, ‘let us walk by the same rule 
whereunto we attained.’ But the rule is not the point of attainment, but 
only the way to it. KI. explains ἐφ᾽ ὃ of a potentia/ attainment in the 
possession of the law of righteousness which Israel had not attained in its 
pursuit (Rom. ix. 30). This norm, in virtue of which they are new creatures, 
is the rule by which they are to walk. This seems forced. 


17. Στοιχεῖν marks an advance of thought, from the principle 
and spirit of Christian life (φρονῶμεν) to its practice (περιπατεῖν). 
The following clause is awkwardly constructed, and lends itself to 
different interpretations. 

Συνμιμηταί μου γίνεσθε, etc.: Render, ‘Brethren, be ye unitedly 
imitators of me, and carefully observe those who walk as ye have 
us for an example.’ The exhortation consists of two parts: 
1. Unite in imitating me. 2. Observe those whose conduct 
resembles mine. Thus οὕτω and καθὼς are correlative, ‘who 
walk so, as ye have,’ etc. The awkwardness is in ἔχετε where 
we should expect ἔχουσι: ‘observe those who walk as ¢hey have 
us,’ etc. The phrase, however, is compressed, and means ‘ walk 
as you do who have me for an example.’ 

ἡμᾶς : Paul and his associates, as Timothy, Epaphroditus, and 
others known to the Philippians. Paul, in speaking of himself, 
occasionally uses the plural for the singular, as in 2 Cor. i. 23, 24, 
xi. 21; but the instances are not as numerous as is sometimes 
supposed. (See Lightf. on 1 Thess. ii. 4.) 


Mey., Weiss, Ellic., render ‘Be imitators wzth others (σὺν) who imitate 
me (viz. those described i in the next clause), and mark those who walk zz 
this way (οὕτω absol. and not correl. with καθὼς) : inasmuch as (καθὼς) γε 
have ws (2.6. both myself and those who εν walk) as an example.’ This 
relieves the awkwardness of ἔχετε, but: It lays unnecessary emphasis 
on Paul’s calling attention to his own Siiere 2. It shifts σὺν from its 
emphatic position in an independent clause to the next clause, from which 
it is separated by καὶ and another verb. 3, It makes οὕτω περιπ. refer to 


116 PHILIPPIANS [III. 17, 18 


συνμιμ. ylv., in which, indeed, it may be implied; but by the other con- 
struction it is directly and naturally related to what follows by περιπ. of 
vs. 18. 


συνμιμηταί μου : Σὺν signifies the union of the subjects of γίνεσθε : 
‘be wnztedly imitators of me.’ Notas Beng., ‘be imitators along 
with me in imitating Christ.’ There is no reference to Christ in 
the context. Svvyip. only here in Bib. No self-conceit is implied 
in pov. (Comp. 1 Cor. iv. τό, xi. τ, τ Thess. 1.6; 2 Thea 
7, 9.) 

σκοπεῖτε : See On ii. 4, and comp. Rom. xvi. 17; 2 Cor. iv. 18. 

τοὺς περιπατοῦντας : Paul often uses περιπατεῖν to describe con- 
duct. (See Rom. vi. 4, viii. 1; 1 Cor. iti. 3; Gal. v.16; Eph. ii. 2.) 
Never in the literal sense. In the Synop., on the other hand, it 
never occurs in the metaphorical sense, and but once in Acts 
(xxi. 21). The metaphorical sense appears in John, especially in 
the Epistles. - (See Jn. (Evy.) vill. 12, xi. 35; 1 Jn. 1: ὁ 7 ΠΟ 
ΤΊ; Εἴ:) 

τύπον : Frequent in Paul; as Rom. ν. 14, vi. 17; 1 Cor. x. 6, 
11; 1 Thess.i. 7. Originally ‘the impression left by a stroke’ 
(τύπτειν). (See Jn. xx. 25.) Generally, ‘image,’ ‘ form,’ always 
with a statement of the object which it represents. Hence ‘ pat- 
tern,’ ‘example.’ 


The exhortation is enforced by the contrast presented by those 
who follow a different example. 


18. πολλοὶ : Precisely who are meant cannot be determined. 
According to most of the earlier expositors, the Judaisers de- 
scribed in vs. 2. So Lips. Some later authorities, as Weiss and 
Ril., the heathen. The majority of modern comms., antinomian 
Libertines of Epicurean tendencies: nominal Christians of im- 
moral life. So Lightf., Mey., Kl., De W., Ellic., Alf., Beet. 


Weiss (Am. Journ. of Theol. April, 1897, p. 391) is very severe upon 
this explanation. He reasons that it is impossible to conceive of such 
nominal Christians in the beloved Philippian church, and identifies the 
πολλοὶ with the κύνες of vs. 2, who, according to him, are the heathen. He 
cites Apoc. xxii. 15 for κύνες, and in his latest commentary, 2 Pet. ii. 22. 
But the latter passage is distinctly of apostate Christians. 


περιπατοῦσιν : ‘conduct themselves’ ; ‘behave,’ as vs. 17. It is 
unnecessary to supply a qualifying word, as κακῶς. 

πολλάκις ἔλεγον : When he was at Philippi, or possibly in former 
letters. (See on vs. 1.) 

νῦν : Contrasted with πολλ. ἐλ. 

κλαίων : This deep emotion would more probably be excited by 
recreant Christians than by heathen whose sensuality and worldli- 
ness were familiar to the Apostle. He would be most sorrowfully 


III. 18, 19] ENEMIES OF THE CROSS OF CHRIST 117 


affected by the reproach and injury to the church wrought by 
professing Christians, and by their own unhappy and perilous 
condition. 

τοὺς ἐχθροὺς : In apposition with the preceding relative ovs. (See 
Win. lix. 7.) The article marks the class which they represent. 

τοῦ σταυροῦ τοῦ Χριστοῦ : Comp. Gal. vi. 12. Σταυρὸς is the 
usual N.T. word for Christ’s cross. In Acts v. 30, x. 39, both 
quotations, ξύλον occurs ; also in 1 Pet. ii. 24. Paul uses ξύλον in 
quotation, Gai. iii. 13, and in his speech at Pisidian Antioch as 
reported in Acts xiii. 29. (Comp. Ign. Smyr.i.; Tradl. xi.) Differ- 
ent surmises (for they are little more) have been offered as to the 
particular point at which Paul conceives this enmity to be directed, 
such as the preaching of the law against the cross (Theo. Mop., 
Thdrt.) ; the hatred of the cross through fear of persecution 
(Grot., Beng.) ; the hatred of the gospel because the cross is its 
central truth (Calv., Weiss) ; hatred of the cross through reluc- 
tance to crucify self or to suffer with Christ (Chr., Mey.). Such 
limitations of the Apostle’s thought are uncalled for. Enmity to 
the cross might include any or all of these particulars. Assuredly 
the title ‘enemies of the cross’ was justly applied to such as are 
described in vs. 19. 


These enemies are more specifically described as to their char- 
acter and destiny. Their destiny is significantly treated first. 


19. ὧν τὸ τέλος ἀπώλεια : ‘whose end is destruction.’ 

To marks the definiteness of the point to which their conduct 
tends.. Τέλος is more than mere termination. Rather consumma- 
tion ; the point into which the whole series of transgressions finally 
gathers itself up. (Comp. Rom. vi. 21; 2 Cor. xi.15 ; Heb. vi. 8.) 
᾿Απώλεια occurs in N.T. both in the physical and in the moral 
sense. For the former see Mt. xxvi. 8; Acts viii. 20. The latter 
is the more common, and Paul always uses it thus. 

ὧν ὃ θεὸς ἡ κοιλία : Comp. Rom. xvi. 18; 2 Pet. ii. 13. The 
rare word κοιλιοδαίμων, ‘one who makes a god of his belly,’ occurs 
in the Κόλακες of the comic poet Eupolis, and in Athenzeus. 
(Comp. Eurip. Cyclops, 335.) Xen. Mem. i. 6, 8, ii. 1, 2, has 
δουλεύειν γαστρί, ‘to be the slave of the belly’; and Alciphro, ii. 4, 
γαστρομαντεύομαι, ‘to divine by the belly.’ The contrast appears 
in Rom. xiv. 17. The suggestion of Lips. (so Theo. Mop.) that 
the reference may be to Jewish laws about meats, is fanciful. 

καὶ ἡ δόξα ἐν τῇ αἰσχύνῃ αὐτῶν : That in which they glory is their 
disgrace. ‘Their so-called liberty is bondage to slavish lusts. For 
δόξα, see on i. τι. With ἐν supply ἔστι ; ‘consists in.’ Beng., 
Mich., Storr, with Lips., refer αἰσχύνη to ‘the concision’ (vs. 2), 
and explain ‘ pudenda.’ 

οἱ τὰ ἐπίγεια φρονοῦντες : ‘who mind earthly things.’ Their 


118 PHILIPPIANS [III. 19, 20 


general disposition and moral tendency are worldly. (See oni. 7.) 
This is the root of their depravity. A contrast is suggested, prob- 
ably intended, with τοῦτο φρονῶμεν, vs. 15. (Comp. Col. iii. 2.) 


The change of construction to the nominative οἱ φρονοῦντες is variously 
explained. Win. xxix. 2, takes οἱ gpov. as a disconnected nominative with 
an exclamatory force. So De W., Lightf. Mey. and Hack. refer it to the 
logical subject of what precedes. Ellic. and Alf. regard it as a return to 
the primary construction, πολλοὶ περιπατοῦσιν. Of these explanations Win. 
is the least probable. The two others have grammatical precedent, but it 
is better to place the construction in the category of those instances which 
are not uncommon in N.T. and in class., where the nominative is introduced 
in a kind of apposition with what precedes. This is especially frequent in 
Apoc. (See Mk. vii. 19; Acts x. 37; Apoc. i. 5, vii. 4, xx. 2; Blass, § 31, 
6; Jelf, 477.) 


Ta ἐπίγ. ppov. is the basis of a new contrast. Their character 
and conduct mark them as belonging to this world; but we are 
citizens of a heavenly commonwealth. 

20. ἡμῶν : Emphatic as contrasted with οἱ τὰ ἐπίγ. ppov. (vs. 19). 

yap: As in Gal. ill. 10, v. 5, confirming the statement concern- 
ing the one party by showing the opposite course or character of 
the other. The connection is with ἐπίγ. dpov. Their course is the 
opposite of ours ; 7207, while they mind earthly things, our mind is 
set upon the interests of the heavenly commonwealth to which we 
belong. The repetition of φρονεῖν as marking the general moral 
tendency or disposition is noticeable. 

τὸ πολίτευμα : ‘commonwealth.’ (Comp. πολιτεύεσθε, i. 27, 
note.) 

No sharp distinction can be drawn between πολίτευμα and πολιτεία. 
Arist. makes πολίτευμα the concrete of πολιτεία, ‘the government’ as the 
expression of citizenship (Pol. iii. 6, I, iii. 7, 2), and also identifies the two 
(Pol. iii. 13, 8, iv. 6,8). He defines πολιτεία as ‘commonwealth’ (Pol. iii. 
7, 3, iv. 8, I, iv. 4,19). In 2 Macc. iv. 11, viii. 17, πολιτεία is ‘ govern- 
ment’; in xiii. 14, apparently, ‘state’ or ‘commonwealth.’ Lightf. gives 
only two meanings of πολίτευμα, ‘the state,’ and ‘ the functions of citizens.’ 
But it also means ‘an act of administration’; ‘a measure of government’; 
and ‘a form of government.’ In the absence of any permanent distinction, 
the rendering ‘ citizenship’ (R.V. ‘commonwealth’ in marg.) is justifiable. 
The rendering of the A.V., ‘ conversation,’ is founded on the original sense 
of that word, ‘conduct or behaviour in intercourse with society.’ 


ὑπάρχει : ‘is.’ (See on ii. 6.) Due emphasis must be laid on 
the use of the present tense. The believer zow zs, in this present 
world, a citizen of the heavenly commonwealth. The πολίτευμα is 
not, therefore, as Mey., to be explained as Messiah’s kingdom 
which has not yet appeared, and of which Christians are citizens 
only in an ideal or proleptic sense which is to be completely 
realised at the parousia. While it is true that the full realisation 
of the heavenly commonwealth will come with the favousza, it is 
no less true that those who are in Christ, whose ‘life is hid with 
Christ in God’ (Col. iii. 3), for whom ‘to live is Christ’ (Phil. i. 


111. 20] THE HEAVENLY COMMONWEALTH 119 


21), who are ‘ crucified with Christ’ and live their present life by 
faith in him (Gal. ii. 20), are zow members of the heavenly com- 
monwealth, and live and act under its laws. Their allegiance is 
rendered to it. They receive their impulses to action and conduct 
from it. Their connection with it is the basis of their life of 
‘righteousness and peace and joy in the Holy Ghost’ (Rom. xiv. 
17), as distinguished from the life of belly-worship and worldliness. 
They ave ‘ fellow-citizens with the saints and of the household of 
God (Eph. ii. 19). ‘The commonwealth of believers zs an actual 
fact on earth, because it is one with ‘ the Jerusalem that is above’ 
(Gal. iv. 26). Comp. .52. zo Diognetus, 5, which describes Christ- 
ians: ἐπὶ γῆς διατρίβουσιν ἀλλ᾽ ἐν οὐρανῷ πολιτεύονται ; apparently 
a reminiscence of this passage. See also Plat. Repub. 592, and 
the remarkable parall., Philo, De Confus. i. 416. 


The consummation of this citizenship, however, is yet to come. 
As members of the heavenly commonwealth they are still pressing 
on in obedience to the upward call (vs. 14). Hence they are in 
an attitude of expectation. 


ἐξ οὗ: ‘whence’: from heaven. Not from the πολίτευμα as 
Beng., Lips. The phrase is adverbial. (See Win. xxi. 3.) 

Kai marks the correspondence of the expectation with the fact 
of the πολίτ. ἐν οὐρ. 

ἀπεκδεχόμεθα : ‘we await.’ (Comp. 1 Thess. i. 10.) The word 
occurs but twice outside of Paul’s letters (Heb. ix. 28; 1 Pet. iii. 
20; comp. Rom. viii. 19, 23, 25; Gal. ν. 5). It denotes earnest 
expectation. (See on ἀποκαραδοκία [i. 20].) Used habitually in 
N.T. with reference to the future manifestation of the glory of 
Christ or of his followers. 

σωτῆρα: ‘as Saviour.’ Without the article, and predicative. 
Notice the emphatic position. The Lord is also to come as 
Judge; but they come not into judgment (Jn. iii. 18, v. 24). 
Among the privileges of Christians described in Heb. xii. 22-24, 
is that of drawing near to the Judge who is God of all. It is in 
the capacity of Saviour that they await him — the same capacity 
in which they have already received and known him. They look 
for him to complete their salvation, and therewith to deliver them 
from the sufferings which they have shared with him, and from the 
infirmities and limitations of the flesh. (Comp. Rom. viii. 19 ff. ; 
2 Cor. v. 4.) 

To await him as Saviour from ἀπώλεια (Weiss) is quite out of 
place in a Christian’s expectation of his Redeemer. wrap is 
found often in 2 Pet. and in the Pastorals. In the other Pauline 
epistles only Eph. v. 23. In six cases in the Pastorals and one in 
Jude, it is applied to God. 

κύριον : See on ii. 11. Answering to the idea of πολίτευμα. 


120 PHILIPPIANS [111. 21 


The special aspect in which the expected Saviour is viewed is 
that of a transformer, changing the mortal body of the believer 
into the likeness of his own glorified body. 


21. ὃς μετασχηματίσει: ‘who shall refashion.’ For the verb 
see 1 Cor. iv. 6; 2 Cor. xi. 13-15. (See on ii. 8, and comp. 
ἀλλαγησόμεθα [τ Cor. xv. 51].) The verb signifies the change of 
the outward fashion (σχῆμα), the sensible vesture in which the 
human spirit is clothed. See Just. M. Dial. Try. 1., where σχῆμα 
is used of the philosopher’s dress. 

The Jews looked merely for the restoration of the present body, 
Paul’s idea includes an organic connection with the present body, 
but not its resuscitation. ‘The new body is not identical with the 
present body. ‘There is a change of σχῆμα, but not a destruction 
of personal identity. ‘‘‘There is a real connection or some corre- 
lation between the present and the future embodiment, but not 
identity of substance. ‘The life, the principle of life, the individu- 
ality of it, shall remain unbroken, but ‘the matter of life,’ as the 
physiologists say, shall be changed” (Newman Smyth, O/d Faiths 
in New Light, p. 364). Paul’s conception is developed under the 
figure of the seed-corn in 1 Cor. xv. 

τὸ σῶμα τῆς ταπεινώσεως ἡμῶν : ‘the body of our humiliation.’ 
Not as A.V. ‘vile body.’ To construe the phrase as a hendiadys 
is grammatically wrong (see on iii. 8), and the apostle is far from 
characterising the body which Christ honored by his tenancy as 
base in itself. Such a sense, moreover, would lend countenance 
to the Stoic contempt for the body. The meaning is, the body in 
which our mortal state of humiliation is clothed. This body is 
called ‘ the body of our humiliation,’ primarily in order to emphas- 
ise the contrast between it and the glorified body of the Lord, 
but also with a subordinate reference to its weakness, its subjection 
to vanity, corruption, and death,—its sufferings, and the hin- 
drances which it offers to Christian striving and spiritual attain- 
ment. (Comp. Rom. viii. 20-24.) 

There may possibly be an implied contrast of the glory of the transformed 
body with that glory of the sensualists which is their shame (Ellic., Mey., 
Weiss), but this must not be pressed. Nor do I find in the expression the 
hortative element which Ellic. thinks that he detects, and likewise K1., who 


says it is an exhortation to preserve their bodies as temples of the Holy 
Ghost. 


σύμμορφον : ‘ that it may be conformed.’ 
TR. adds εἰς To γενεσθαι αὐτὸ with Dbande EKLP, συγ, Probably 
supplied to meet the apparent difficulty of the appositional accusative. 


The adjective denoting the effect of the transformation is added 
appositionally instead of forming an independent sentence with 
cis τὸ γενέσθαι αὐτό. (Comp. Mt. xii. 13; 1 Thess. iii. 13; and 


111. 21] THE BODY OF CHRIST’S GLORY 121 


see Win. lxvi. 3g.) As μετασχ. denoted change of outward fash- 
ion, σύμμορφ. denotes conformation to what is essential, per- 
manent, and characteristic in a body which is the appropriate 
investiture of Christ’s glorified condition—a ‘spiritual body’: 
a conformity which is inward and thorough, and not merely 
superficial On the union of Christians with the spiritual life 
of Christ which belongs to the heavenly world (Rom. vi. 5), rests 
their hope that they shall be saved in his life and conformed to 
its heavenly investiture. (See Rom. v. 9, 10, vili. 10, 11.) 

σώματι τῆς δόξης αὐτοῦ: ‘to the body of his glory.’ Not as 
A.V. ‘glorious body,’ by hendiadys, which dilutes and weakens: 
the conception. See on vs. 8, and for other misapplications of 
the figure hendiadys, comp. A.V. Rom. viii. 21, ‘glorious liberty’ ; 
2 Cor. iv. 4, ‘glorious gospel’; Eph. i. 19, ‘mighty power’; 
1 Pet. i. 14, ‘obedient children.’ The resurrection in the N.T. 
is habitually conceived in connection with corporeity, but a cor- 
poreity in keeping with the heavenly life. (See Weiss, διό. Theol. 
Eng. §§ 19, 34.) The phrase ‘body of his glory’ signifies the 
body in which he is clothed in his glorified state, and which is the 
proper investiture of his heavenly glory; the form in which his 
perfect spiritual being is manifest. ‘This glory is peculiarly and 
originally the glory of the incorruptible God, and therefore be- 
longs to an embodiment which retains no trace of earthly materi- 
ality or corruption, but is altogether informed and determined by 
the higher vital principle (πνεῦμα) and is its appropriate organ 
(σῶμα πνευματικόν, τ Cor. xv. 44). Accordingly this glorified 
body is no longer in antithesis to the πνεῦμα. It is the investiture 
which the πνεῦμα forms for itself, and which perfectly reveals it. 
In the resurrection, through which, as completed by the ascension, 
Christ received this body, he became wholly πνευματικός --- a πνεῦμα 
ζωοποιοῦν (τ Cor. xv. 45), and therefore is called τὸ πνεῦμα (2 Cor. 
iii. 17). A foreshadowing of this appeared in his bodily mani- 
festation between the resurrection and the ascension. His body 
appeared as πνευματικόν though not in its full manifestation as the 
σῶμα τῆς δόξης αὐτοῦ. (See Newman Smyth, Old Faiths in New 
Light, p. 358; Westcott, Gospel of the Resurrection, ch. ii. p. 19- 
20 5 i Oswald Dykes, " Expositor, Ist ser. lil. p. 161 ; Mey. on 
1 Cor. xv. 45.) 

The change into the body of Christ’s glory is the consumma- 
tion of the believer’s life in him. (Comp. vs. 9-11.) The entire 
passage (vs. 9-21) is acomplete statement of the Pauline doctrine 
of salvation : 

1. The beginning, the intermediate stages, and the sum of all 
are Christ (vs. 9). 

2. Justification by faith and mystical union with Christ form 
one conception — righteousness of God by faith and shige, found 
in Christ (vs, 9). 


122 PHILIPPIANS [111. 21 


3. This conception is carried out on the line of mystical union 
with Christ: to know him, the power of his resurrection, and the 
fellowship of his sufferings, being made conformable to his death. 
Notice the repetition of αὐτοῦ, keeping Christ continually before 
the eye (vs. 10). 

4. The life in Christ is marked by earnest striving to realise the 
ends for which the believer was grasped by Christ. He follows 
the beckoning of God which ever summons him heavenward, in 
order that he may at last win the heavenly prize (12-16). 

5. Vital communion with Christ constitutes him a member of a 
heavenly commonwealth. ‘To this his allegiance is rendered ; by 
its laws his life is regulated ; its members are his brethren. As a 
citizen of this commonwealth he eagerly awaits its consummation 
in the final triumph and eternal establishment of the Messianic 
kingdom (vs. 20). 

6. Therefore, living in the power of Christ’s resurrection, he 
awaits in hope the actual resurrection from the dead, wherein the 
saving power of Christ will be displayed in the change of the mortal 
bodies of all believers into the likeness of Christ’s glorified body, 
and which will inaugurate the absolute and eternal dominion of 
the commonwealth of God (vs. 21). 


The warrant for this confident expectation is the divine power 
of Christ to subject all things to himself. 


κατὰ τὴν ἐνέργειαν τοῦ δύνασθαι αὐτὸν : ‘according to the working 
whereby he is able’; or, more literally, ‘according to the energy 
of his ability.’ 

κατὰ : The change is ‘in accordance with’ or ‘appropriate to’ 
Christ’s power of universal subjection. The statement both as to 
the change itself and the power which effects it, is in accordance 
with 1 Cor. vi. 14, xv. 53, 55; Eph. i. 19. 

"Evépyeta occurs only in Paul. It is power in exercise; “ po- 
tentia in actu exserens’’ (Calv.), and is used in N.T. only of 
superhuman power. (See Col. i. 29, ii. 12; 2 Thess. ii.g.) It 
is the active energy in which δύναμις displays itself. (Comp. Eph. 
ili. 7, and see on 6 ἐνεργῶν, ii. 13.) The power or virtue which 
was in Christ when the woman touched the hem of his garment 
(Mk. v. 30; Lk. viii. 46) was δύναμις. In the healing of the 
woman it became ἐνέργεια. 

καὶ : ‘also’ or ‘even,’ marking the measure of the power. Able 
not only to transform the body but aéso to subject all things to 
himself. 

ὑπόταξαι : Originally ‘to arrange’ or ‘marshal under.’ Often 
simply ‘to subject.’ (See 1 Cor. xv. 27, 28; Eph. i. 22; Heb. ii. 
8; Jas. iv. 7.) 

τὰ πάντα : ‘all things,’ collectively, as vs. 8. 


111. 8-10] RIGHTEOUSNESS BY FAITH 123 


PAUL'S CONCEPTION OF RIGHTEOUSNESS BY 
FAITH. 


M. Ménégoz, in his treatise Ze Péché et la Rédemption, says 
that Phil. iii. 8-ro contains the most precise statement of the 
Pauline doctrine of justification by faith. Without assenting to 
his view that Christ was justified by his own death and resurrec- 
tion, I agree with him as to the importance of the statement 
contained in these verses. It does not contradict any previous 
utterance of Paul, nor does it present any new feature; but it 
combines and exhibits as a single conception what are commonly 
regarded as two distinct elements of the righteousness of faith. 
These two elements are assumed to be separately treated in the 
Epistle to the Romans. They are, the initial, objective, judicial 
act of declaring righteous, whereby a believer is placed in a state 
of reconciliation with God, and the establishment, through faith, 
of a vital union with Christ; or, to put the matter more briefly, 
the righteousness of faith viewed as objective justification and 
as subjective sanctification. I say ‘regarded’ and ‘assumed,’ 
because, both on the ground of this passage and of the Epistle 
to the Romans, I do not regard this separation as justifiable. 
For I think that these two elements are inseparably united in 
the Apostle’s conception of righteousness by faith. The distinc- 
tion between justification and sanctification I regard as largely 
technical. They represent, it is true, respectively, the initiation 
and the consummation of the work of salvation; but Paul uses 
ἁγιασμός both of the σης and of the process of sanctification ; 
and that word, in Rom. vi. 19, is associated with the ‘walk in 
newness of life’ rather than with the consummation of subjection 
to righteousness. Having become servants of righteousness, the 
readers stand committed to an economy of sanctification, in which 
they are to ‘ perfect holiness in the fear of the Lord’ (2 Cor. vii. 1. 
See Sanday on Rom. vi. 19). The point is well stated by Liddon 
in his Analysis of Romans, pp. 17, 18: “The δικαιοσύνη which 
God gives includes these two elements, — acquittal of the guilt of 
sin, or justification in the narrower sense of the word, and the 
communication of a new moral life, ‘that the ordinance of the 
law might be fulfilled in us’ (Rom. viii. 4). These two sides of 
the gift of δικαιοσύνη can only be separated in thought: in fact 
they are inseparable.... The true righteousness is one, not two 
or more. The maxim ‘justitia alia justificationis, sanctificationis 
alia’ is not Paul’s. Paul knows nothing of an external righteous- 
ness which is reckoned without being given to man; and the 
righteousness which faith receives is not external only, but inter- 
nal; not imputed only, but imparted to the believer. Justification 


Γ 


124 PHILIPPIANS [11|. 8-10 


and sanctification may be distinguished by the student as are the 
arterial and nervous systems in the human body ; but in the living 
body they are coincident and inseparable.” 

I think that, so far as justification is a judicial act following upon 
repentance and faith, it is regarded by Paul as the initial stage of 
a condition of actual inward righteousness, which is to develop 
itself in the believer’s experience as fruit from seed. (Comp. 
Lips. Hand-Com. Ep. to Rom. Einl. p. 82.) Hence I differ from 
Professor Bruce (51 Paul’s Conception of Christianity, p. 158 ff., 
Amer. ed.), who claims that the two aspects of justification are 
separately treated by Paul in Romans. He says: “ He does not 
refer to the subjective aspect of faith as a renewing power till he 
has finished his exposition of the doctrine of justification. He 
takes up faith’s function in establishing a vital union with Christ 
in the sixth chapter.... Does not this amount to the exclusion 
of faith’s sanctifying function from the grounds of justification ?”’ 
I think not. For, as Professor Bruce admits, Paul already alludes 
to the subjective aspect of justification in the opening of the fifth 
chapter. Being justified, we have peace with God, joy in hope of 
glory, in tribulation, and in God himself. But, what is more to 
the point, Paul, in the third and fourth chapters, does not treat 
of the oferation of justification. His main point is the essential 
guality of justification, as being by faith and not by works of the 
law. When he does take up the operation of justification in ch. vi., 
he treats the two aspects in combination. He does not confine 
himself to what follows justification. He begins with the death to 
sin. With Christ we die to sin; we are raised up with nim unto a 
walk in newness of life. Union with him by the likeness of his 
death implies union with him by the likeness of his resurrection. 
Our old man was crucified with him, that the body of sin might 
be done away, that so we should no longer be in bondage to 
sin. “But if we died with Christ, we believe that we shall also 
live with him (here, not only hereafter) ; knowing that Christ, 
being raised from the dead, dieth no more; death no more 
hath dominion over him. For the death that he died, he died 
unto sin once for all: but the life that he liveth, he liveth unto 
God. Even so reckon ye also yourselves to be dead unto sin, 
but alive unto God in Christ Jesus.” Comp. “ be found in him” 
(Phil. iii. 9). 

(1) In our passage Paul represents the righteousness of faith 
as a veal righteousness in the believer. It is not founded upon 
human merit; it is not a righteousness of legal obedience. It 
proceeds from God and comes to man through faith in Christ 
(vs.9). It is not perfect (vs. 12-14). None the less it is an 
actual righteousness in the man. Justification contemplates right- 
ness—right living, feeling, and thinking. Faith is not a substi- 
tute for this rightness. It is its generative principle; its informing 


III. 8-10] RIGHTEOUSNESS BY FAITH 125 


quality. God’s plan of salvation is not intended to effect, by a 
mere legal adjustment, something which cannot be an actual fact. 
It is not true that God practically gives up the possibility of right- 
eous men, and merely allows the perfect righteousness of Jesus 
Christ to stand for it. God’s intent is to make men personally 
righteous. Paul does not teach, nor is it anywhere taught in 
Scripture, that the requirement of personal righteousness is ful- 
filled for man by some one else, and that man has only to accept 
this substitute by faith. Rather Paul declares explicitly that God 
predestined his children ‘to be conformed to the image of his 
Son’ (Rom. vill. 29). 

I shall not enter upon the discussion of the meaning of δικαιοῦν, 
since the question does not turn upon that. It may be conceded 
that the dominant sense of that word is forensic, ‘to declare or 
pronounce righteous.’ That that sense can be vindicated in every 
instance, I very much doubt. (See E. P. Gould on “ Paul’s Use 
of δικαιοῦν,᾽" Amer. Journ. of Theol. vol. i. No. 1, and W. A. Stevens 
in vol. i. No. 2.) But, that question apart, it should be noted that 
the sense of a declared or imputed righteousness, if it belong to 
δικαιοσύνη at all, is peculiar to Paul. Elsewhere it has the meaning 
of personal rightness, or righteous quality. In the LXX it occurs 
in nine instances as the translation of “on, ‘kindness’; while 
MPT, ‘justice,’ usually translated by δικαιοσύνη, is, in nine cases, 
rendered by ἐλεημοσύνη, and three times by ἔλεος. In Mt. vi. 1, 
the TR, with the later uncials and most cursives, read ἐλεημοσύνην 
for δικαιοσύνην ; while Ν᾿ gives δόσιν. (See Hatch, Essays in Bib- 
lical Greek, p. 49 ff.) 

(2) This conception of a real righteousness in the believer is 
opposed to the familiar dogmatic explanation that δικαιοσύνη 
πίστεως is not a personal but an imputed quality. According to 
this, the righteousness is not in the man, but in Christ; and 
Christ’s righteousness is imputed, or reckoned, or set down to his 
account through his faith. This imputation works no subjective 
change in the man. It is merely placing to his account the right- 
eousness of another. He is, though not actually righteous, judi- 
cially declared to be righteous. Thus Dr. Hodge (Syst Zheol. 
iii. p. 144 ff.) : The imputation of the righteousness of Christ to 
a believer for his justification “does not and cannot mean that 
the righteousness of Christ is infused into the believer, or in any 
way so imparted to him as to change or constitute his moral char- 
acter. Imputation never changes the inward, subjective state of 
the person to whom the imputation is made. . . . When right- 
eousness is imputed to the believer, he does not thereby become 
subjectively righteous.” ‘Thus justification, having its foundation 
in the imputation of Christ’s righteousness, is only a declarative 
act whereby a man is pronounced righteous without any actual 
righteousness in him answering to the declaration, but solely on 


126 PHILIPPIANS [III. 8-10 


the ground of another’s righteousness, which, in some inexplicable 
way, is transferred to his credit. This is simply a legal fiction 
which reflects upon the truthfulness of God. God declares a man 
righteous when he is not righteous. “To Paul,” says Sabatier, 
“the word of God is always creative and full of power. It always 
produces an actual effect. In declaring a man justified, therefore, 
it actually and directly creates in him a new beginning of right- 
eousness’”’ (Apostle Paul, Eng. Trans. p. 300). 

(3) This is clearly not the conception expressed in this passage. 
The righteousness of faith which Paul here desires for himself is 
a winning Christ and a being in Christ. ‘This righteousness is first 
described generally as knowing Christ, and then, more specifically, 
as knowing the power of his resurrection and the fellowship of 
his sufferings, and being made conformable unto his death; that 
is to say, the righteousness of God by faith is a being and dwell- 
ing in Christ in such wise as that his resurrection, his sufferings, 
his death, become actual parts of Paul’s experience and active 
forces in it. Christ is not merely apprehended as an object of 
trust. He is not merely known as an objective personality. The 
believer is taken up into his life ; and his life in turn possesses the 
believer, and becomes his informing principle and prime motor. 
(See Gal. ii. 20.) 

In short, the conception of the righteousness of faith here pre- 
sented is not that of an external righteousness made over to the 
believer by a legal declaration, but that of a righteousness which is 
a real fact in the man, springing from union with the personal 
Christ. In this mystical union the life and power of Christ are 
transfused into the believer’s life, so that, in a sense, the person- 
ality of Christ becomes his; so that he can say, ‘ for me to live is 
Christ,’ and ‘not I live but Christ liveth in me.’ The old man, 
the natural ego, is crucified with Christ ; the new man is raised up, 
and, in the power of Christ’s risen life, walks in newness of life, 
in fellowship with the Father and with his Son Jesus Christ. All 
the righteousness which inheres in that perfect personality becomes 
potentially his from the moment that faith puts him into living 
connection with it. All the experience of Christ’s life becomes a 
fact and a power in his experience. Did Christ die to sin? He 
also dies to sin. Was Christ justified from sin by death? So 
likewise is he. Did Christ rise from the dead? He rises from 
the death of sin, besides sharing finally in Christ’s physical resur- 
rection. The knowledge of Christ’s death and resurrection is not 
merely an insight into the historical meaning of those facts. Did 
Christ suffer? The heavenly nature which he receives from Christ 
insures for him, as it did for Christ, the contradiction of sinners 
against himself. Was Christ perfected through suffering? He 
attains perfection by the same road. Does Christ live unto God ? 
He is alive unto God through Jesus Christ, and all the powers of 


= 


111. 8-10] RIGHTEOUSNESS BY FAITH 127 


that divine life descend upon him and work in him to conform 
him to the image of the Son of God. 

Says Calvin (7152. iii. 1): “ First, it is to be held that, so long 
as Christ is outside of us and we are separated from him, what- 
ever he has suffered and done for the salvation of the human race 
is useless and without significance to us. Therefore, in order that 
he may communicate to us what he has received from the Father, 
he must become ours and dwell in us. Hence he is called our 
‘head,’ and ‘the first-born among many brethren’; while we in 
turn are said to be ingrafted into him and to put him on, because 
whatever he possesses is nothing to us until we coalesce into one 
with him.” And again (xi. 10): “Christ, having become ours, 
makes us partakers of the gifts with which he is endowed. We 
do not therefore view him as outside of us, so that his righteousness 
is imputed to us ; but because we put on himself and are ingrafted 
into his body, he has deigned to make us one with himself. 
Therefore we boast that we have his righteousness.” So, too, 
Luther (Werke, Erlang. Ausg. 37, 441) : “ Christ is God’s grace, 
mercy, wisdom, strength, comfort, and blessedness. I say not as 
some, causafiter ; that is, that he gives righteousness, and remains 
without. For in that case righteousness is dead, nay, it is never 
given. Christ‘is there Azmse/f, like the light and heat of the fire, 
which are not where the sun and the fire are not.” 

(4) This passage presents a conception of faith different from 
that implied in the imputative theory. According to that, faith 
is merely a medium by which the man is put into contact with 
something outside of himself — “a mere hand,” as Professor Bruce 
puts it, “to lay hold of an external righteousness.” According to 
Paul’s teaching here, an ethical quality inheres in faith. Faith is 
amoral energy. It “works by love” (Gal. v. 6). This accords 
with Heb. xi., where faith is exhibited as the generator of moral 
heroism. Righteousness, as already observed, is effected in a 
believer by the transfusion into him of Christ’s life and character, 
not by Christ’s righteousness being placed to his account. To 
assume the latter is to fall back from the gospel upon the law. 
Paul says, “ not having a righteousness of my own which is of the 
law’’; but if the righteousness of faith is legally and forensically 
imputed, it zs of the law. Righteousness has its roots in personal 
relation to God. Sin is more than bad conduct. Bad conduct is 
only the result of personal separation and estrangement from the 
Father, God. The terrible significance of sin lies in the break 
between a human life and its divine source; and the attainment 
of righteousness is possible only through the reéstablishment of 
the original birth-relation, as Christ declared in the words, “ Ye 
must be born anew.” The mere genealogical fact of sonship must 
be translated into a living, personal relation. This is possible only 
through faith. A handbook of laws will-not effect it. Rules will 


128 PHILIPPIANS [III. 8-10 


not establish personal relations. Precepts will not put a son’s 
heart into a man. He will not love to order, nor obey because 
he is bidden, nor trust because a trustworthy object is commended 
to him, nor be meek and merciful because it is right to be so. 
Being righteous is not a matter of assent to a proposition. It is 
a matter of surrender to a person. Such surrender comes about 
only through faith, because only faith has in it that element which 
draws personalities, lives, hearts together. Therefore faith does 
not count zzs¢ead of righteousness. It counts as making for (εἰς) 
righteousness ; with a view to righteousness ; as tending to right- 
eousness, just as the corn of wheat counts for the full corn in the 
ear. Therein is its value. It is counted for what it is, not for 
what it is not. It is the prime agent in righteousness. The right- 
eousness which is of God becomes in man the righteousness of 
faith, because in faith, which inaugurates the vital union of the 
man with Christ, which constitutes personal and not mere legal 
relation, lie enfolded all the possibilities of righteousness. Faith 
is presumptive righteousness. It is the native element in which 
righteousness evolves itself. Righteousness is begun, continued, 
and perfected in the exercise of the faith which holds the life in 
living contact with the personal source of holiness; in the trust 
and self-surrender which make possible the inpouring and appro- 
priation of all heavenly forces. “With the heart man believeth 
unto righteousness”? (Rom. x. 10). In Christ the believer decomes 
the righteousness of God (2 Cor. v. 21). “ Faith is that temper 
of sympathetic and immediate response to another’s will which 
belongs to a recognised relation of vital communion. It is the 
spirit of confident surrender which can only be justified by an 
inner identification of life. Faith is the power by which the con- 
scious life attaches itself to God ; it is an apprehensive motion of 
the living spirit by which it intensifies its touch on God; it is 
an instinct of surrender by which it gives itself up to the fuller 
handling of God; it is an affection of the will by which it presses 
up against God, and drinks in divine vitality with quickened 
receptivity” (Henry Scott Holland, in Zax Mundi, pp. 17, 18). 
There is no true faith in Christ without the indwelling of Christ. 
Paul makes the latter the criterion of the former (2 Cor. xiii. 5). 


Pfleiderer’s treatment of this subject i is interesting and suggestive. (See 
Paulinismus, ch. iv.) 


IV. 1] VARIOUS EXHORTATIONS TO UNITY, ETC. 129 


IV. 1-9. VARIOUS EXHORTATIONS TO UNITY, JOY, 
FORBEARANCE, TRUSTFULNESS, PRAYER, ATTEN-— 
TION TO ALL VIRTUES, AND THE PRACTICE OF 
ALL THAT THEY HAVE LEARNED FROM PAUL; 
WITH ASSURANCES OF THE PRESENCE, GUAR-— 
DIANSHIP, AND PEACE OF GOD 


In view of this glorious future, do you, my brethren beloved, 
continue steadfast in the Lord. I learn that Euodia and Syntyche 
are at variance. TI beseech them to be reconciled, and I entreat 
you, Synsygus, who are justly so named, to use your influence 10 this 
end; for those women were my helpers in the gospel work, along 
with Clement and other faithful laborers. Rejoice in the Lord, 
always. TI repeat it, rejoice. Let all men see your forbearing 
spirit; and in no case be anxious, for the Lord ts at hand. Com- 
mit every matter to God in prayer, and pray always with thankful 
hearts ; and God’s peace which, better than any human device, can 
Lift you above doubt and fear, shall guard your hearts and thoughts 
in Christ Jesus. Finally, my brethren, take account of everything 
that ts venerable, just, pure, lovely, and of good report—in short, 
of whatever virtue there is, and of whatever praise attaches to tt. 
Practise what you have learned from me, and the God of peace 
shall be with you. 


1. wore: ‘so that’; ‘accordingly.’ (Comp. Mt. xii. 12; Rom. 
vii. 4, 12; τ Cor. xv. 58; Phil. ii. 12.) Connected immediately 
with 111. 20, 21; but through those verses with the whole of 
ch. il., since in heavenly citizenship are gathered up all the 
characteristics which Paul in that chapter has commended to his 
readers. This verse may therefore be regarded as the proper 
conclusion of ch. iii. 

ἐπιπόθητοι : ‘longed for.’ A hint of the pain caused by his 
separation from them. Only here in N.T. (Comp. Clem. ad 
Cor. \xv.) The verb ἐπιποθεῖν occurs mostly in Paul. (See Rom. 
1,11; 2 Cor. v. 2; Phil. i. 8, ii. 26.) "*Ezuoia only in Rom. xv. 
23. Ἐπιπόθησις, 2 Cor. vii. 7,11. (See oni. 8.) 

χαρὰ καὶ στεφανός μου : ‘my joy and crown.’ (Comp. 1 Thess. 
ii. 19.) Χαρὰ by metonymy for the subject of joy. redavds in 
class. mostly of the woven crown—the chaplet awarded to the 
victor in the games ; a wreath of wild olive, green parsley, bay, or 
pine ; or the garland placed on the head of a guest at a banquet. 

K 


130 PHILIPPIANS [Iv.1, 2 


(See Athen. xv. p. 685; Aristoph. Ach. 636; Plat. Symp. 212.) 
So mostly in N.T., though στεφανός occurs with χρυσοῦν (Apoc. 
xiv. 14). The kingly crown is διάδημα, found only in Apoc. The 
distinction is not strictly observed in Hellenistic Greek. (See 
Trench, Syz. xxiii.) Neither χαρὰ nor στεφανός applied to the 
Philippians is to be referred to the future, as Calv., Alf. They 
express Paul’s sense of joy and honor in the Christian fidelity of 
his readers. (Comp. Sir. 1. 11, xxv. 6.) 

οὕτως στήκετε: ‘So Stand fast.’ ‘So,’ as I have exhorted you, 
and as becomes citizens of the heavenly commonwealth. Not, 
‘so as ye do stand,’ as Beng., Calv. For στήκετε see on i. 27. 
The particle wore with the imperative retains its consecutive force, 
but instead of a fac¢ consequent upon what precedes, there is a 
consequent exhortation. 

ἐν κυρίῳ : With the exception of Apoc. xiv. 13 only in Paul, who 
uses it more than forty times. See on ἐν Χριστῷ Ἰησοῦ (i. 1). 
Denoting the sphere or element in which steadfastness is to be 
exhibited. (Comp. 1 Thess. iii. 8.) 

ἀγαπητοί : repeated with affectionate emphasis. 


B, 17, Cop., Syr.8h, add μου. 


Two prominent women in the church are urged to become 
reconciled to each other. 


2. Evodiav — ΣΣυντύχην : ‘Euodia—Syntyche.’ Not ‘ Euodias,’ 
as A.V. Both are female names ; see αὐταῖς (vs. 3). Both occur 
in inscriptions, and there are no instances of masculine forms. 
The activity of the Macedonian women in cooperating with Paul 
appears from Acts xvii. 4, 12. 


I am a little doubtful, however, as to Lightfoot’s view that a higher social 
influence was assigned to the female sex in Macedonia than was common 
among the civilised nations of antiquity. I fail to find any notice of this 
elsewhere. Lightf.’s inference is drawn wholly from inscriptions which do 
not appear to be decisive. For example, all the inscriptions which he 
cites to show that monuments in honor of women were erected by public 
bodies, distinctly indicate Roman influence. The names are Roman, and 
perpetuate the memory of different Roman gentes, a point which would 
naturally be emphasised in a Roman co/onia distant from the mother city. 
His assertion, moreover, that the active zeal of Macedonian women is 
without a parallel in the apostle’s history elsewhere, seems open to ques- 
tion in the light of the closing salutations of the Epistle to the Romans. 
Klépper thinks that the names Euodia and Syntyche represent two women 
in each of whose houses a separate congregation assembled, the one Jewish- 
Christian and the other Gentile-Christian. Lipsius thinks this possible. For 
some of the fanciful interpretations of these two names, see Introd. vi. 
Theo. Mop. mentions a story he had heard to the effect that they were a 
married pair, the latter name being Syntyches, and that the husband was 
the converted jailer of Philippi. ‘The climax is reached by Hitzig (Αγ. 
paulin. Br. 5 ff.), who affirms that Euodia and Syntyche were reproductions 


IV. 2, 3] EUODIA, SYNTYCHE, AND SYNZYGUS 131 


of the patriarchs Asher and Gad; their sex having been changed in the 
transition from one language to the other; and that they represent the 
Greek and the Roman elements in the church. 


παρακαλῶ : “1 exhort.’ See on παράκλησις (11. 1). The repeti- 
tion of the word emphasises the separate exhortation to each. 

τὸ αὐτὸ φρονεῖν : ‘to be of the same mind.’ (See on ii. 2.) 

ἐν κυρίῳ : With τ. ad. dpov. In that accord of which the Lord 
is the bond: each individually in Christ, and each therefore at 
one with the other. 

3. vai: ‘yea.’ The reading καὶ has almost no support. (Comp. 
Mt. xv. 27; Rom. iii. 29 ; Philem. 20.) The preceding exhortation 
is enforced by introducing a third party. ‘I have urged Euodia 
and Syntyche to live in harmony; yes, and I entreat you also,’ 
etc. 

ἐρωτῶ καὶ σέ: ‘I beseech thee also.’ “Epwray originally ‘to 
question,’ as Lk. xxii. 68; Jn. ix. 21. Only in that sense in class. 
The meaning ‘to entreat’ belongs to later Greek. Thus rendered, - 
it usually signifies to ask a Jerson ; not to ask a ching of a person ; 
and to ask a person 29 do, rarely Zo give. See Trench, Syz. xl. ; 
but his distinction between épwrav and αἰτεῖν does not hold. (See 
Ezra Abbot, Zhe Authorship of the Fourth Gospel and Other 
Critical Essays.) 

γνήσιε Σύνζυγε: ‘Synzygus, who art rightly so named.’ The 
A.V. ‘ yoke-fellow,’ gives the correct sense of the proper name, 
and γνήσιε marks the person addressed as one to whom the name 
is justly applied. (See on γνησίως, ii. 20. Comp. ἑτεροζυγοῦντες, 
2 Cor. vi. 14.) It is true that this proper name has no confirma- 
tion from inscriptions ; but such descriptive or punning names are 
very common, as Onesimus, Chrestus, Chresimus, Onesiphorus, 
Symphorus, etc. 


The attempts to identify the person referred to are numerous, and the 
best are only guesses. Clem. Alex., Paul’s own wife; Chr., the husband or 
brother of Euodia or Syntyche; Lightf., Epaphroditus. But it is improb- 
able that Paul would have written thus in a letter of which Epaph. was the 
bearer. Others, Timothy or Silas; Ellic. and De W., the chief bishop at 
Philippi. Wiesel., Christ; vai introducing a prayer. 


συλλαμβάνου αὐταῖς : ‘help those (women).’ Lit. ‘take hold 
with.’ Assist them in reconciling their differences. (Comp. 
Lk. v. 7.) 


Lips., following Chr. and Theoph., explains the verb in a general sense: 
‘interest yourself in them.’ Grot. refers it to their support as widows. 


αἵτινες : ‘inasmuch as they.’ See on ἅτινα (ili. 7). Not as 
A.V. ‘who.’ The double relative classifies them among Paul’s 
helpers, and gives a reason why Synzygus should promote their 
reconciliation. 


132 PHILIPPIANS [Iv. 3 


συνηθλησάν por: ‘they labored with me.’ The verb only here 
and i. 27, on which see note. It indicates an activity attended 
with danger and suffering. (Comp. 1 Thess. 11. 2.) 

ἐν τῷ εὐαγγελίῳ : the sphere of their labors. (Comp. Rom. i. 9 ; 
1 Thess. iii. 2.) 

μετὰ καὶ Κλήμεντος : Construe with συνηθ. ‘Who labored with 
me in the gospel along with Clement and others.’ ‘The position 
of καὶ between the preposition and the noun is unusual, and shows 
that the force of the preposition extends over the whole clause. 


Lightf. takes μετὰ Κλήμ. with συλλαμβ. According to this, Paul calls 
upon Clement and the rest whose names are in the book of life to help the 
women. But the relative clause ὧν τὰ ὀνόμ., etc., associates itself more 
naturally with συνηθ. Paul gives this confidential commission to ene per- 
son, and not to an indefinite number. 


Philippi was probably the scene of the labors referred to, since 
Paul speaks of- them as familiarly known. Clement appears to 
have been a Philippian Christian who assisted in the foundation 
of the church at Philippi. This is suggested by τῶν λοιπῶν. 


The attempt to identify him with Clement of Rome, which originated 
with Origen (/z Joann. i. 29), is generally abandoned. (See Lightf. 
Comm. Ὁ. 168 ff.; Langen, Geschichte der Rémischen Kirche, Bd. i. S. 84; 
Miller, Kirchengeschichte, i. 89; Salmon’s art. “Clemens Romanus” in 
Smith and Wace, Dict. Chn. Biog.) 


συνεργῶν : Comp. il. 25. Only once in N.T. outside of Paul’s 
letters. (See 3 Jn. 8.) 

ὧν τὰ ὀνόματα ἐν βίβλῳ ζωῆς : ‘whose names are in the book of 
life.’ Supply ἐστί, not εἴη, ‘ may they be,’ as Beng., who says, “‘ they 
seem to have been already dead, for we generally follow such with 
wishes of that sort.” The names are in the book of life, though 
not mentioned in the apostle’s letter. The expression βίβλος or 
βιβλίον τῆς ζωῆς in N.T. is peculiar to Apoc. This is the only 
exception, and the only case in which ζωῆς occurs without the 
article. (See Apoc. iii. 5, xiii. 8, xvii. 8, XxX. 12, 15, ΧΧΙ, 7, sean 
19.) It isan O.T. metaphor, drawn from the civil list or register 
in which the names of citizens were entered. The earliest refer- 
ence to it is Ex. xxxii. 32. (Comp. Is. iv. 3 ; Ezek. xiii. 9 ; Dan. 
xii. 1.) To be enrolled in the book of life is to be divinely 
accredited as a member of God’s commonwealth (comp. Lk. 
x. 20), so that the expression falls in with τὸ πολίτευμα ἐν οὐρανοῖς 
(iii. 20). To be blotted out from the book of life (Ex. xxxii. 32, 
33; Ps. lxix. 28) is to be disfranchised, cut off from fellowship 
with the living God and with his kingdom. The phrase was also 
in use by Rabbinical writers. (See Wetst.) Thus in the Targum 
on Ezek. xiii. 9: “In the book of eternal life which has been 
written for the just of the house of Israel, they shall not be written.” 
Any reference to the doctrine of predestination i is entirely out of 


IV. 3-5] REJOICE AND FORBEAR 133 


place. Flacius, cit. by Mey., justly observes that it is not fatalis 
guaedam electio which is pointed to, but that they are described 
as written in the book of life because possessing the true right- 
eousness which is of Christ. 


EXHORTATIONS TO THE CHURCH AT LARGE 


4. χαίρετε: ‘rejoice’; the keynote of the epistle. Not ‘ fare- 
well.’ (See on iii. 1.) 

πάντοτε: With a look at the future no less than at the present, 
and at the possibility of future trials. Only as their life shall be 
ἐν κυρίῳ will they have true joy. 

πάλιν ἐρῶ: ‘again I will say it.’ As if he had considered all 
the possibilities of sorrow. ‘In spite of them all, I will repeat it 
— rejoice.’ 

Not as Beng., joining πάντοτε with the second χαίρετε, ‘again I will say, 
always rejoice.’ 


5. τὸ ἐπιεικὲς ὑμῶν : ‘your forbearance.’ From εἰκός, ‘ reason- 
able’; hence, ‘not unduly rigorous.’ Aristot. ich. Eth. v. το, 
contrasts it with ἀκριβοδίκαιος, ‘severely judging.’ The idea is, 
‘do not make a rigcrous and obstinate stand for what is your just 
due.’ Comp. Ign. ZfA. x., ἀδελφοὶ αὐτῶν εὑρεθῶμεν τῇ ἐπιεικείᾳ: 
‘Let us show ourselves their brothers by our forbearance.’ 

*Emceckjs in N.T., 1 Tim. iii. 3; Tit. iii. 2, where it is joined with ἄμαχος; 

I Pet. ii. 18; Jas. iti. 17, with ἀγαθὸς and εὐπειθής. ᾿Επιείκεια, Acts xxiv. 4; 

2 Cor. x.1; the latter with πραύτης. LXX, ἐπιεικής, Ps. Ιχχχνὶ, (Ixxxv.) 5: 

ἐπιείκεια, Sap. 11. 19; 2 Mace. ii. 22; 3 Mace. ili. 15. ᾿Επιεικῶς, not in 

N.T., 1 Sam. xii. 22; 2 K. vi. 3; 2 Macc. ix.27. The neuter adjective with 

the article = the abstract noun ἐπιείκεια. (Comp. τὸ χρηστὸν, Rom. ii. 4; 

τὸ μωρὸν, I Cor. i. 25.) 


Mey. remarks that the disposition of Christian joyfulness must 
elevate men quite as much above strict insistence on their rights 
and claims as above solicitude. 

πᾶσιν ἀνθρώποις : Not to your fellow-Christians only. 

ὃ κύριος ἐγγύς : ‘the Lord is near.’ For κύριος, see on ii. 11. 
In the Gospels usually ‘God.’ In Paul mostly ‘ Christ,’ and more 
commonly with the article (Win. xix. 1). The phrase expresses 
the general expectation of the speedy second coming of Christ. 
Comp. Μαρὰν ἀθά (τ Cor. xvi. 22), ‘the Lord will come,’ or ‘ the 
Lord is here.’ See also Rom. xiii. 12; Jas.v.8. “Eyyis, of time. 
The connection of thought may be either with what precedes, or 
with what follows ; 2.46. the near approach of Christ may be regarded 
as a motive to either forbearance or restfulness of spirit. Most 
modern expositors connect with the former, but the thought pro- 
ceeds upon the line of the latter. Apart from this fact there is 
nothing to prevent our connecting 6 κύρ. ἐγ. with both, as Alf. 


134 PHILIPPIANS [Iv. 5, 6 


and Ellic. ‘Be forbearing ; the Lord is at hand who will right all 
wrongs and give to each his due. Be not anxious. The Lord is 
at hand. Why be concerned about what is so soon to pass away? 
The Lord’s coming will deliver you from all earthly care.’ (Comp. 
1 Cor. vil. 29-31.) 


Some of the earlier interpreters, taking éyyvs in a local sense, explain 
of the perpetual nearness of Christ; as Mt. xxviii. 20 (Aug.). Others, taking 
κύριος = ‘God,’ of the helpful presence of God’s providence; as Ps. xxxiv. 
18, cxix. 151, cxlv. 18 (am E., Calov., Ril.). But this does not accord with 
the Pauline usage of κύριος. 


6. μηδὲν μεριμνᾶτε : ‘in nothing be anxious.’ Μεριμνᾷν occurs 
most frequently in the Gospels. In Paul only here and 1 Cor. 
From the root wep or pap, which appears in the Homeric μερμηρίζ- 
ev, ‘to be anxious,’ ‘to debate anxiously.’ The verb may mean 
either ‘to be full of anxiety,’ or ‘to ponder or brood over.’ In 
N.T. usage it does not always involve the idea of worry or 
anxiety. See, for inst.,; 1 Cor. vil. 32, xi. 25 ; ΕΠῚῚ ππ τ 1 
other cases that idea is emphasised, as here, Mt. xiii. 22; Lk. 
x. 41. (See Prellwitz, Hiymol. Worterb. ad. griech. Sprache, sub 
μέριμνα ; Schmidt, Syzon. 86, 3; W. Sz. on Mt. vi. 25.) The 
exhortation is pertinent always to those who live the life of faith 
(1 Pet. v. 7), and acquired additional force from the expectation 
of the speedy coming of the Lord. 

ἐν παντὶ : ‘in everything.’ Antithesis to μηδὲν. The formula is 
found only in Paul. Not ‘on every occasion,’ supplying καιρῷ 
(see Eph. vi. 18), nor, as Ril., including the idea of time; nor, 
as Vulg., ‘in omni oratione et obsecratione,’ construing παντὶ with 
προσ. x. Seno. Prayer is to include all our interests, small and 
great. Nothing is too great for God’s power; nothing too small 
for his fatherly care. 

τῇ προσευχῇ καὶ τῇ δεήσει : ‘by prayer and supplication.’ Zhe 
(or your) prayer and “ke supplication appropriate to each case. 
In N.T. the two words are joined only by Paul. (See Eph. vi. 18 ; 
1 Tim. ii. 1, v. 5 ; LXX; Ps. vi. το, lv. [liv.] 2.) For the distinc- 
tion, see oni. 4. The dative is instrumental. 

μετὰ εὐχαριστίας : ‘with thanksgiving.’ ‘The thanksgiving is to 
go with the prayer, 221 everything (comp. Col. ili. 17); for although 
the Christian may not recognise a particular ground of thanks- 
giving on the special occasion of his prayer, he has always the 
remembrance of past favors and the consciousness of present 
blessings, and the knowledge that all things are working together 
for good for him (Rom. viii. 28). This more comprehensive 
application of εὐχαριστία may explain the absence of the article, 
which appears with both προσευχῇ and δεήσει, and which Paul uses 
with εὐχαρ. in only two instances (1 Cor. xiv. τό ; 2 Cor. iv. 15), 
where the reason is evident. Rilliet observes that the Christian, 


IV. 6,7] THE GUARDIANSHIP OF GOD’S PEACE 135 


“being, as it were, suspended between blessings received and 
blessings hoped for, should always give thanks and always ask. 
Remembrance and supplication are the two necessary elements 
of every Christian prayer.” ‘Thanksgiving expresses, not only the 
spirit of gratitude, but the spirit of submission, which excludes 
anxiety, because it recognises in the will of God the sum of its 
desires. So Calv., “ Dei voluntas votorum nostrorum summa est.” 
Paul lays great stress upon the duty of thanksgiving. (See Rom. 
pee (G2 Cor, i, 21, iv. 15, ix τὰ, 12; Eph. v..205;, Col. 
12} 2 hess. 1.3.) 

τὰ αἰτήματα ὑμῶν : ‘your requests.’ Only here; Lk. xxiii. 24 ; 
I Jn. v. 15. According to its termination, αἴτημα is ‘a thing 
requested,’ and so in all the N.T. instances. Vulg. ‘ petitiones.’ 


In class. it sometimes has the sense of αἴτησις, ‘the act of requesting,’ 
which does not occur in N.T., as Plato, Repud. villi. 566 B. On the other 
hand, αἴτησις is found in the sense of αἴτημα, as Hdt. vii. 32; LXX; 
3 K. ii. 16, 20, 


γνωριζέσθω : ‘be declared’ or ‘made known.’ (See oni. 22.) 
As if God did not know them. (Comp. Mt. vi. 8.) 

πρὸς τὸν θεόν: Not merely ‘fo God,’ but implying intercourse 
with God, as well as the idea of direction. (See on ii. 30; and 
comp. Mt. sitio 56%, Mk. vi. 3, ἰχ. τό ; Jn. i. τ; 1 Cor. xvi. 6.) 

7. καὶ: Consecutive ; ‘and so.’ 

ἡ εἰρήνη τοῦ θεοῦ: ‘the peace of God.’ Only here in N.T. 
Comp. 6 θεὸς τῆς εἰρήνης (vs. 9). Not the objective peace with 
God, wrought by justification (Rom. v. 1 [Chr., Theoph., Aug.]) ; 
nor the favor of God (Grot.); nor peace with one another 
(Thdrt., Lips.), since mutual peace cannot dissipate anxiety ; but 
the inward peace of the soul which comes from God, and is 
grounded in God’s presence and promise. It is the fruit of 
believing prayer; “the companion of joy” (Beng.). Of course 
- such peace implies and involves the peace of reconciliation with 
God. In the hearts of those who are reconciled to God through 
faith in Christ, the peace of Christ rules (Col. iii. 15). As mem- 
bers of the heavenly commonwealth (ili. 20), they are in a king- 
dom which is “ righteousness and peace and joy” (Rom. xiv. 17). 
“The God of hope,” to whom their expectation is directed, fills 
them “ with all joy and peace in believing” (Rom. xv. 13). They 
are not disquieted because they know that “ all things are working 
together for good to them that love God” (Rom. viii. 28). 

ἡ ὑπερέχουσα πάντα νοῦν : ‘which surpasseth every thought (of 
man).’ For ὑπερέχειν, ‘to rise above,’ ‘overtop,’ ‘surpass,’ see 
li. 3, ii. 8. ‘The verb is not common in N.T. Only four times 
in Paul, and once in 1 Pet. ii. 13. Paul has been enjoining the 
duty of prayer under all circumstances as a safeguard against 
anxiety. Hence this assurance that the peace of God surpasses 


136 PHILIPPIANS [Iv. 7 


every human thought or device as a means of insuring tranquillity 
of heart. The processes and combinations of human reasoning 
result only in continued doubt and anxiety. Mere reason cannot 
find a way out of perplexity. The mysterious dealings of God 
present problems which it cannot solve, and which only multiply 
its doubts and questionings. Within the sphere of God’s peace 
all these are dismissed, and the spirit rests in the Lord, even 
where it cannot understand. A different and widely-accepted 
explanation is that of the Greek expositors: that the peace of 
God is so great and wonderful that it transcends the power of the 
human mind to understand it. So Ellic., Ril., Alf, Ead. Aug. 
and Theoph. add that even the angels cannot comprehend it. 
But this thought has no special relevancy here, while the other 
explanation is in entire harmony with the context. Comp. also 
1 Cor. 11. 9-16. 

Νοῦς is the reflective intelligence ; in Paul, mostly as related to 
ethical and spiritual matters. It is the organ of the natural moral 
consciousness and knowledge of God (Rom. i. 20, 28, vil. 23). 
It is related to πνεῦμα as the faculty to the efficient power. Until 
renewed by the divine πνεῦμα, it cannot exercise right morai judg- 
ment (Rom. xii. 2); and although it may theoretically approve 
what is good, it cannot conform the practice of the life to its 
theory (Rom. vil. 25). It is this which is incapable of dealing 
with the painful and menacing facts of life in such a way as to 
afford rest. 

φρουρήσει : ‘shall guard.’ A promise, not a prayer, ‘may the 
peace of God guard,’ as the Greek Fathers (Chr., however, says it 
may mean either), some of the older expositors, and Vulg. ‘ custo- 
diat.’ The word, which is a military term, in the N.T. is almost 
confined to Paul. (See τ Pet.i.5.) The metaphor is beautiful 
—the peace of God as asentinel mounting guard over a believer’s 
heart. It suggests Tennyson’s familiar lines : 


“ Love is and was my King and Lord, 
And will be, though as yet I keep 
Within his court on earth, and sleep 

Encompassed by his faithful guard, 
And hear at times a sentinel 
Who moves about from place to place, 
And whispers to the worlds of space, 
In the deep night, that all is well.” 


All limitations of the promise, such as guarding from the power 
of Satan, from spiritual enemies, from evil thoughts, etc., are arbi- 
trary. The promise is general, covering all conceivable occasions 
for fear or anxiety. ‘He teaches us the certain result of our 
prayers. He does not, indeed, promise that God will deliver us 
in this life entirely from calamities and straits, since he may have 


‘ 


IV. 7,8] THE GUARDIANSHIP OF GOD’S PEACE 137 


the best reasons for leaving us in this struggle of faith and patience 
with a view to his and our greater glory at the appearing of Christ ; 
but he does promise us that which is greater and more desir- 
able than all the good things of this life—the peace of God” 
(Schlichting). 

Tas καρδίας ὑμῶν Kal τὰ νοήματα ὑμῶν : ‘your hearts and your 
thoughts.’ Καρδία in the sense of the physical organ is not used 
in N.T. It is the centre of willing, feeling, and thinking. Never, 
like ψυχή, to denote the individual subject of personal life, so as 
to be exchanged with the personal pronoun; nor as πνεῦμα, of 
the divine principle of life in man. Like our ‘heart,’ it denotes 
the seat of feeling, as contrasted with intelligence (Rom. ix. 2, 
i by) 2 Cor. ἢ ἢ vi. £1,;.Phil..i. 7)... But not this only. . It.is 
also the seat of mental action— intelligence (Rom. i. 21; Eph. i. 
18), and of moral choice (1 Cor. vil. 37; 2 Cor. ix. 7). It gives 
impulse and character to action (Rom. vi. 17; Eph. vi. 5). It is 
the seat of the divine Spirit (Rom. v. 5 ; 2 Cor. i. 22; Gal. iv. 6), 
and the sphere of his operation in directing, comforting, establish- 
joe ete. (Col mL 15 5% Thess. ii. 13\; 2 Thess. ii. 17, ii. 5)... It 
is the seat of faith (Rom. x. 9), and of divine love (Rom. v. 5), 
and is the organ of spiritual praise (Col. ii. 16). 

νοήματα, only in Paul. Things which issue from the καρδία ; 
thoughts, acts of the will. Hence, of Satan’s ‘devices’ (2 Cor. ii. 
ἘΠῚ τς Gee 2 Cor. iii. 14, IV. 4, X. 5, Xi. 3), The two,nouns are 
emphatically separated by the article and the personal pronoun 
attached to each. 


Calv.’s distinction between καρδ. and vo. as ‘affections’ and ‘ intelli- 
gence’ is unpauline. Neither are they to be taken as synonymous, nor as 
a popular and summary description of the spiritual life (De W.). 


ἐν Χριστῷ Ἰησοῦ: As so often, the sphere in which divine pro- 
tection will be exercised. ‘This‘divine peace is assigned as guardian 
only to those who are in Christ (iii. 9). 


Some, as De W., Ril., K1., Weiss, explain : ‘Shall keep your hearts zz 
union with Christ. So Theoph., core μὴ ἐκπεσεῖν αὐτοῦ ἀλλὰ μᾶλλον 
μένειν ἐν αὐτῷ. 


8. τὸ λοιπόν : ‘finally.’ (See on 11]. 1.) Introducing the con- 
clusion of the letter. No reference to iii. 1, by way of resuming 
after a long digression; nor does it introduce what remains for 
them to do in addition to God’s protecting care (De W.), since 
there is no indication of an antithesis. It prefaces an exhortation 
parallel with vs. 4-6, containing a summary of duties, to which is 
added a promise of the presence of the God of peace. The 
exhortation is not to the cultivation of distinct virtues as such 
(so Luth., Calv., Beza, Beng.), but each virtue represents general 
σεδίρϑυθηθες of life viewed on a particular side, the different sides 


138 PHILIPPIANS [Iv.8 


being successively introduced by the repeated ὅσα, and summed 
up by the twofold εἴ τις. 
ἀληθῆ: ‘true.’ God is the norm of truth. That is true in 
thought, word, or deed, which answers to the nature of God as 
revealed in the moral ideals of the gospel of his Son, who mani- 
fests him, and who can therefore say, ‘I am the truth’ (Jn. xiv. 6). 
Not to be limited to truth in speaking, as Thdrt., Beng. 
σεμνά : ‘reverend’ or ‘venerable.’ Exhibiting a dignity which 
grows out of moral elevation, and which thus invites reverence. 
In class. an epithet of the gods. ‘Venerable’ is the best render- 
ing, if divested of its conventional implication of age. Matthew 
Arnold (God and the Bible, Pref. xxii.) renders ‘nobly serious,’ 
as opposed to κοῦφος, ‘ lacking intellectual seriousness.’ 
With the exception of this passage, σεμνὸς occurs only in the Pastorals, 
and the kindred σεμνότης only there. (See 1 Tim. ii. 2, iii, 4, 8, 11; 
Tit. ii. 2, 7.) In LXX, of the name of God (2 Macc. viii. 15); of divine 


laws (2 Macc. vi. 28); of the Sabbath (2 Mace. vi. 11); of the words of 
wisdom (Prov. viii. 6); of the words of the pure (Prov. xv. 26). 


δίκαια : ‘just.’ In the broadest sense, not merely in relation to 
men, but according to the divine standard, satisfying all obliga- 
tions to God, to their neighbor, and to themselves. (Comp. 
Rom. ii. 13.) 
ayva: ‘pure.’ Always with a moral sense. So ἁγνότης (2 Cor. 
vi. 6). Not to be limited here to freedom from sins of the flesh: 
it covers purity in all departments of the life, motives as well as 
acts. In class. dyvds is ‘ pure,’ ‘chaste,’ in relation to life (as of 
female purity, purity from blood-guilt), or to religious observances, 
as of sacrifices. (See Schmidt, Syzon. 181, 11.) Both ἁγνός and 
ἅγιος mean pure in the sense of ‘sinless.’ The radical difference 
between them is, that ἅγιος is ‘holy,’ as being set apart and 
devoted ; ἁγνός, as absolutely undefiled. Christ is both ἅγιος and 
dyvos. See on ἁγίοις, i. τ. In 1 Jn. ili. 3, dyvds is applied to 
Christ, and ἁγνίζειν to the imitation of his purity. In 2 Cor. xi. 2, 
of virgin purity. (Comp. Clem. ad Cor. xxi.) In 1 Tim. v. 22, 
of moral spotlessness. In Jas. iii. 17, as characterising heavenly 
wisdom. ᾿Αγνῶς (Phil. i. 17), of preaching the gospel with un- 
-mixed motives. ᾿Αγνίζειν, which in LXX is used only of ceremon- 
ial purification, has that meaning in four of the seven instances 
in N.T. (Jn. xi. 55; Acts xxi. 24, 26, xxiv. 18). In the others 
(Jas. iv. 8; 1 Pet. i. 22; 1 Jn. iii. 3), of purifying the heart and 
soul. Neither ἁγνός, ἁγνότης, nor ἁγνῶς occur in the Gospels. 

“‘Ayvés and all the kindred words which appear in N.T. are found in 
LXX. Αγνισμα (Num. χίχ. 9), not in N.T. For ἀγνιασμός (Num. viii. 7), 
the correct reading is ἁ γνισμός. In LXX dyvés is used of the oracles of 
God, of the fear of God, of prayers, of the heart, of works, of fire, of a virgin, 
of a man free from cowardice, and of the soul. (See Ps. xii. [xi.] 6, xix. 
[xviii.] 10; Prov. xix. 13, xx. 9, xi. 8; 2 Macc. xiii. 8; 4 Macc. v. 37, xviii. 

7, 8, 23.) 


Iv. 8] TAKE ACCOUNT OF ALL GOOD THINGS 139 


The two following qualities appeal to the affectionate or admir- 
ing recognition of others. 


προσφιλῆ ; ‘lovely,’ ‘amiable.’ Whatever calls forth love. Only 
here in N.T. In LXX in a passive sense (Sir. iv. 7, xx. 13). 

εὔφημα : ‘fair-sounding.” A.V. and R.V. ‘of good report.’ 
‘Gracious,’ R.V. marg. is vague. Not merely having a fair sound 
to the popular ear, “ vox et praeterea nihil,” but fair-sounding, as 
implying essential worthiness. 


In class. of words or sounds of good omen. Hence εὔφημος, ‘ abstaining 
from inauspicious words’; ‘keeping a holy silence.’ (See Aisch. Ag. 1247; 
Soph. O. C. 132.) 


A comprehensive exhortation follows, covering all possible 
virtues. 


εἴ τις : ‘if there be any’: whatever there is. For the form of 
expression, comp. ii. 1; Rom. xiii. 9; Eph. iv. 29. Not ‘ what- 
ever other.’ 

ἀρετὴ : ‘virtue’; moral excellence. In class. it has no special 
moral significance, but denotes excellence of any kind — bravery, 
rank, excellence of land or of animals. It is possibly for this rea- 
son that Paul has no fondness for the word, and uses it only here. 
Elsewhere in N.T. only by Peter, who uses it of God (1 Pet. ii. g ; 
2 Pet. i. 3), and enjoins it as a Christian quality (2 Pet.i.5). It 
is found in LXX; of God, Hab. ili. 3 = δόξα ; Is. xlii. 8, 12, plu., 
in connection with δόξα, and ΧΙ]. 21, signifying God’s attributes 
of power, wisdom, etc. ; Zech. vi. 13, of him whose name is ‘ the 
Branch,’ and who shall receive ἀρετὴν, 2.6. the attributes of sover- 
eignty ; Esth. (interpol.) xiv. 10, of the pretended attributes of 
the vain ; Sap. iv. 1, of moral excellence in men. 


Lightf.’s explanation is ingenious and suggestive. ‘ Whatever value may 
reside in your old heathen conception of virtue’; as if he were anxious to 
omit no possible ground of appeal. 


ἔπαινος : ‘praise.’ If there is any praise that follows the prac- 
tice of virtue, as the praise of love (1 Cor. xiii.). Not ‘that which 
is praiseworthy’ (Weiss). 

ταῦτα λογίζεσθε: ‘these things take into account.’ ‘Reckon’ 
with them. ‘ Horum rationem habete” (Beng.). It is an appeal 
to an independent moral judgment, to thoughtfully estimate the 
value of these things. Not = φρονεῖν, ἃ5 De W. ‘Think on these 
things’ (A.V., R.V.) is a feeble and partial rendering. 


‘He now brings the scheme of duties more clearly before them, 
and at the same time reminds them, by appealing to his own 
previous instructions and example, that he is making no new 


140 PHILIPPIANS [IV. 8, 9 


demands upon them. “ Facit transitionem a generalibus ad 
Paulina” (Beng.). 


9. a καὶ : ‘those things which also.’ Those things which are 
true, venerable, etc., which a@/so ye learned of me. 


Others codrdinate the four cals: ‘those things which ye have as well 
learned as received; as well heard as seen’ (Vulg., Calv., Beza, Lightf.). 


The four verbs form two pairs: ἐμάθετε and παρελάβετε referring 
to what they had learned by teaching; ἠκούσατε and εἴδετε, by 
example. 

euabere .. . παρελάβετε : ‘learned’... ‘received.’ The mean- 
ings do not differ greatly, except that παρελ. adds, to the simple 
notion of learning, that of what was communicated or transmitted. 


ΚΙ. ἐμάθ. by personal instruction; παρελ. as oral or epistolary traditions 
obtained from him or transmitted by his delegates. Mey. renders παρελ. 
‘accepted’; but that sense is rare in Paul. 1 Cor. xv. 1 is doubtful. 
1 Cor. xi. 23, xv. 3; Gal. 1. 12; 2 Thess. iii. 6, signify simple reception. 
(See Lightf. on Gal. i. 12; Col. ii. 6; 1 Thess. ii. 13.) 


ἠκούσατε καὶ εἴδετε : ‘heard and saw.’ In their personal inter- 
course with him. Not through preaching (Calv.), which has 
already been expressed. Lightf. and others explain 7x. of what 
they heard when he was absent. But all the other verbs refer to 
the time of his presence at Philippi. 

Ἔν ἐμοι properly belongs to 7x. and εἴδ., but is loosely taken 
with all four verbs. ἜἘμάθ. and zapeX., strictly, would require 
παρ᾽ ἐμοῦ. 

πράσσετε: ‘do,’ or ‘practise.’ A distinction between πράσσειν 
and ποιεῖν is recognisable in some cases; πράσσειν, ‘ practise,’ 
marking activity in its progress, and ποιεῖν in its accomplishment 
or product. The distinction, however, is not uniformly main- 
tained, and must not be pressed. (See Schmidt, Sywon. 23, and 
Trench, Syn. xcvi.) 

καὶ : Consecutive, as vs. 7; ‘and so.’ 

ὃ θεὸς τῆς εἰρήνης : ‘the God of peace.’ Who is the source and 
giver of peace. ‘The phrase only in Paul and Heb. (See Rom. 
KV. 33, xvi..20; 1 Thess. v..23.; Heb. xii. 20.) , Peace ΤΠ 105 
N.T. sense, is not mere calm or tranquillity. All true calm and 
restfulness are conceived as based upon reconciliation with God. 
Christian peace implies the cessation of enmity between God and 
man (Rom. viii. 7) ; the complete harmony of the divine and the | 
human wills; the rest of faith in divine love and wisdom (Is. 
xxvi. 3). God is ‘the God of peace’ only to those who are at — 
one with him. God’s peace is not sentimental, but moral. Hence 
the God of peace is the sanciifier of the entire personality (1 Thess. 
v.23). Accordingly ‘ peace’ is habitually used in connection with 


IV. 9, 10] YOUR GIFT MADE ME GLAD 141 


the Messianic salvation, both in the Old and the New Testaments. 
The Messiah himself will be ‘peace’ (Mic. ν. 5). Peace is associ- 
ated with righteousness as a Messianic blessing (Ps. ]xxii. 7, Ixxxv. 
10). Peace, founded in reconciliation with God, is the theme of 
the gospel (Acts x. 36); the gospel is ‘the gospel of peace’ 
(Eph. ii. 17, vi. 15 ; Rom. x. 15) ; Christ is ‘the Lord of peace’ 
(2 Thess. iii. 16), and bestows peace (Jn. xiv. 27, xvi. 33). “It 
is through God, as the author and giver of peace, that man is able 
to find the harmony which he seeks in the conflicting elements of 
his own nature, in his relations with the world, and in his relations 
to God himself’’ (Westcott, on Heb. xiii. 20). 


He now returns thanks for the gift which the Philippian church 
has sent him by Epaphroditus, and praises their past and present 
generosity. 


10-20. J greatly rejoice in the Lord because of your kind thought 
Jor me as shown in your gift; a thought which you have indeed 
entertained all along, but have had no opportunity to carry out. 
7 do not speak as though I had been in want; for I have learned 
the secret of being self-sufficient in my condition; not that I am 
sufficient of myself, but I can do all things in Him that strength- 
eneth me. It was a beautiful thing for you thus to put yourselves in 
Sellowship with my affliction; but this is not the first time; for in 
the very beginning, as I was leaving Macedonia, you were the only 
church that contributed to my necessities, sending supplies to me 
more than once in Thessalonica. But my chief interest is not in 
the gift itself, but in the spiritual blessing which your acts of min- 
istry will bring to you. Nevertheless my need is fully met by this 
gift which Epaphroditus brought from you — this sacrifice of sweet 
odor, acceptable to God. And as you have ministered to my need, 
so God will supply every need of yours, with such bounteousness 
as befits his riches in glory in Christ Jesus. To him, our God 
and Father, be glory forever. My salutations to all the members 
of your church. The brethren who are with me send you greeting, 
and ali the members of the Roman church, especially those of 
Cesar’s household. The grace of the Lord Jesus Christ be with 
your spirit. 


10. ἐχάρην δὲ ἐν κυρίῳ : ‘but I rejoice in the Lord.’ Again the 
keynote of the epistle is struck. (See i. 18, ii. 17, 18, 28, iii. 1, 
iv. 4; comp. Polyc. ad Phil, i.) "Exdp.: epistolary aorist. . 


142 PHILIPPIANS [Iv. 10 


ἐν κυρίῳ : The gift, its motive, and the apostle’s joy in it, were 
all within the sphere of life in Christ. The gift has its distinctive 
and choicest character for him as proceeding from their mutual 
fellowship in Christ. Thus Chr., οὐ κοσμικῶς ἐχάρην, φησὶν, οὐδὲ 
βιωτικῶς : “1 rejoice, he says, not in a worldly fashion, nor as 
over a matter of common life.” 

μέγαλως : ‘greatly.’ Only herein N.T. (See LXX; 1 Chron. 
xxix. 9; Neh. xii. 43.) Notice the emphatic position. 

ἤδη ποτὲ : ‘now at length.’ Only here and Rom. i. 10. Ἤδη 
marks a present as related to a past during which something has 
been in process of completion which is now completed, or some- 
thing has been expected which is now realised. Ποτὲ indicates 
indefinitely the interval of delay. With ἤδη the writer puts him- 
self at the point where the interval indicated by ποτὲ terminates. 


Others, as Weiss, render ‘already once’; which would be a mere refer- 
ence to something past and now repeated. ‘This is precluded by the con- 
nection, and especially by the latter part of vs. Io. 


ἀνεθάλετε TO ὑπὲρ ἐμοῦ φρονεῖν : ‘ye have revived your thought 
for me.’ ᾿᾽Ἄνεθ. is transitive, and τὸ im. ἐμ. dp. is accusative of 
the object. You caused your thought for me to sprout and bloom 
afresh, like a tree putting out fresh shoots after the winter. So 
Weiss, Lips., Lightf., De W. 


Others, as Mey., KI., Ellic., Alf., Beet, regard the verb as intransitive. 
In that case either τὸ ὑπ. ἐμ. must be taken as accus. of the obj. after gpor., 
‘ye revived to think of that which concerned me,’ which is awkward and 
improbable; or τὸ @p. ὑπ. ἐμ. must be taken as the accus. of reference, 
‘ye revived as regarded the thinking concerning me.’ According to this 
the following clause would mean, ‘ye took thought concerning the taking 
thought for me.’ The only serious objection urged against the transitive 
sense of ἀνεθ. is that it seems to make the revival of interest dependent on 
the will of the Philippians, and thus implies a reproach. But this is strain- 
ing a point. Paul simply says: ‘I rejoice that, when the opportunity per- 
mitted, you directed your thought towards me and sent me a gift which 
circumstances had prevented your doing before.’ That no reproach is 
implied is evident from the following words. ᾿Αναθάλλειν only here in N.T. 
In LXX, transitively, Ezek. xvii. 24; Sir. i. 18, xi. 22, ]. 10. 


ἐφ ᾧ: ‘wherein,’ or ‘with reference to which’; namely, the © 
matter of my welfare. Ὑπὲρ (ἐμοῦ) emphasises the personal inter- 
he, ἐπὶ merely marks a reference to the matter in question. 

: Besides your ἀναθάλλειν at the favorable opportunity, you 

wane ‘also’ concerned all the time until the opportunity occurred. 

ἐφρονεῖτε : imperfect tense : ‘ye were all along taking thought.’ 
Every possible suggestion of reproach is removed by this. 

ἠκαιρεῖσθε δέ : ‘ but ye were lacking (all the while you were thus 
taking thought) opportunity.’ The verb (only here in Bib.) refers 
to the circumstances which had prevented them from sooner 
sending their gift; either lack of means, or want of facilities for 
transmitting the contribution, etc. 


IV. 11, 12] SELF-SUFFICIENCY IN CHRIST 143 


There is a possibility of their misunderstanding his expression 
of joy to mean merely satisfaction at the relief of his personal 
needs. He will guard this. 


11. οὐχ ὅτι : ‘not to say that,’ or ‘I do not say that.’ A dis- 
tinctively N.T. formula. (See Jn. vi. 46, vii. 22; 2 Cor. i. 24, 
ili. 5.) In class. ‘not only’; or, when not followed by a second 
clause, ‘ although.’ 

καθ᾽ ὑστέρησιν λέγω : “1 speak according to want’; 2.6. ‘as if I 
were in a state of want.’ Lightf. aptly, ‘in language dictated by 
want.’ Comp. κατ᾽ ἐριθίαν, κατὰ κενοδοξίαν, ii. 3. Ὑστέρησις, only 
here and Mk. xii. 44. He does not deny the want itself, but the 
want as the motive and measure of his joy. 

ἐγὼ yap ἔμαθον : ‘for I have learned.’ The aorist for the per- 
fect. See on ἔλαβον, 111. 12 (Burt. 46, 55). The tuition has 
extended over his whole experience up to the present. Ἐγὼ 
emphasises his personal relation to the matter of want. ‘JZ, so far 
as my being affected by want.’ 

ἐν ois εἰμὶ : ‘in the state inwhich I am.’ Notas A.V.and R.V., 
‘in whatever state I am,’ but in all the circumstances of the pres- 
ent. For εἶναι or γίνεσθαι ἐν, see Mk. v. 25 ; Lk. xxii. 42; 1 Cor. 
BVT 1 1 1685. 11: δ. vs 4. 

αὐτάρκης : ‘self-sufficing.” Only here in N.T.; LXX; Sir. xl. 
18 ; αὐτάρκεια, 2 Cor. ix. 8; τ Tim. vi. 6. Avrdpxe is an inward 
self-sufficing, as opposed to the lack or the desire of outward 
things. Comp. Plat. Zim. 33 D, ἡγήσατο yap αὐτὸ ὃ ξυνθεὶς 
αὕταρκες Ov ἄμεινον ἔσεσθαι μᾶλλον ἢ προσδεὲς ἄλλων: “For the 
Creator conceived that a being which was self-sufficient would be 
far more excellent than one which lacked anything.” It was a 
favorite Stoic word. See on πολιτεύεσθε, i. 27. It expressed the 
doctrine of that sect that man should be sufficient unto himself 
for all things, and able, by the power of his own will, to resist’ 
the force of circumstances. Comp. Seneca, De Vita Beata, 6, 
addressed to Gallio: ‘‘ Beatus est praesentibus, qualiacunque sunt, 
contentus.” A list of interesting paralls. in Wetst. Paul is not 
self-sufficient in the Stoic sense, but through the power of a new 
self — the power of Christ in him. (Comp. 2 Cor. iii. 5.) 


He proceeds to explain ἐν οἷς... αὐτάρκης in detail. The 
ἔμαθον is developed by οἶδα and μεμύημαι. 


12. οἶδα: ‘I know,’ as the result of having learned. (See on 
1. 19, 25.) 

καὶ ταπεινοῦσθαι: ‘also how to be abased.’ Kai connects raz. 
with the preceding more general statement, eu. . . . αὐτάρ. εἶν. 
Ταπεινοῦσθαι : ‘to be brought low,’ with special reference to the 
abasement caused by want. Not in the spiritual sense, which is 


Ὶ . 


144 PHILIPPIANS ' [Iv. 12 


all but universal in N.T. The usual antithesis of ταπεινοῦν is ὑψοῦν. 
(See 2 Cor. xi. 7; Phil. ii. 8, 9; τ Pet.v. 6.) Here the antithesis 
is περισσεύειν, contrasting abundance with the want implied in raz. 

οἶδα καὶ περισσεύειν: ‘and I know how to abound.’ Οἶδα is 
repeated for emphasis. Περισ., ‘to be abundantly furnished.’ 
Not ‘to have superfluity,’ as Calv. Paul says, ‘1 know how to 
be abased and not crushed ; to be in abundance and not exalted.’ 
(Comp. 2 Cor. iv. 8, 9.) 

ἐν παντὶ καὶ ἐν πᾶσιν : ‘in everything and in all things.’ In all 
relations and circumstances. In every particular circumstance, 
and in all circumstances generally. ‘In Allem und Jedem.” 
(Comp. 2 Cor. xi. 6.) For ἐν πᾶσιν, comp. Col. 1. 18, ili, 11 ; 
1 Tim. iii. 11 ; Heb. xiii. 18. Paul more commonly uses ἐν παντὶ. 
Both adjectives are neuter, after the analogy of ots (vs. 11). 


Such interpretations of ἐν παντὶ as ‘ubique’ (Vulg., Calv., Beza); or 
reference to time (Chr.); or, taking παντὶ as neuter, and πᾶσιν as mascu- 
line (Luth., Beng.), are fanciful. 


μεμύημαι : ‘I have been initiated.’ R.V., ‘I have learned the 
secret.’ In class., mostly in the passive, of initiation into the 
Greek mysteries, as the Eleusinian. (See Hdt. ii. 51; Plat. Govg. 
497C; Aristoph. Plat. 846; Ran. 158.) In a similar sense, 
LXX; 3 Macc. ii. 30. The kindred word μυστήριον is common in 
Paul of the great truths hidden from eternity in the divine coun- 
sels, and revealed to believers (Eph. iii. 3, 4, 9; Col. i. 26, ii. 2, 
etc.). Comp. Ign. Zph. xii., Παύλου συμμύσται τοῦ ἡγιασμένου : 
“associates in the mysteries with Paul who has been sanctified.” 
Connect ἐν παν. x. ἐν πᾶσ. adverbially with μεμύ., while the infini- 
tives depend on μεμύ. Thus: ‘In everything and in all things I 
have been instructed to be full,’ etc. 


Others, as De W., Lips., Ellic., while connecting ἐν παν. x. ἐν πᾶσ. with 
μεμύ. as above, make the following infinitives simply explicative; while that 
in which Paul has been instructed is represented by ἐν παντὶ, etc. The 
objection urged against this is that μυεῖσθαι appears to be habitually con- 
strued, either with the accusative of the thing, the dative, or, rarely, with 
the infinitive; though there is one instance of its construction with a 
preposition, κατὰ (3 Macc. ii. 30). This objection is not formidable, and 
is relieved by our rendering. 


χορτάζεσθαι : ‘to be full.’ The verb, primarily, of the feeding 
and fattening of animals in a stall. Comp. Apoc. xix. 21, of 
feeding birds of prey with the flesh of God’s enemies. In Synop., 
of satisfying the hunger οὔ με multitude (Mt. xiv. 20 and paralls. ). 
In Mt. v. 6; Lk. vi. 21, of satisfying spiritual hunger. 

ὑστερεῖσθαι : ‘to suffer need.’ From ὕστερος, ‘behind.’ The 
phrase ‘to fall behind’ is popularly used of one in straitened 
circumstances, or in debt. It is applied in N.T. to material defi- 
ciency (Lk. xv. 14; Jn. ii. 3) ; and to moral and spiritual short- 


IV. 12, 13] I CAN DO ALL THINGS 145 


coming (Rom. iii. 23; 1 Cor. viii. 8; Heb. xii. 15). The middle 
voice (not pass. as Thay.) indicates the feeding of the pressure of 
want,as Lk. xv. τὰ; Rom. 11. 22; 2 Cor. xi. 8. The mere fact 
of want is expressed by the active voice, as Mt. xix. 20; Jn. il. 3. 
In 2 Cor. xii. 11, Paul says that he was in no respect dehind the 
‘extra super’ apostles ; οὐδὲν ὑστέρησα, expressing the fact of his 
equality, not his sevse of it. 


See some good remarks of Canon T. 5. Evans on 1 Cor. i. 7 (Zxfosztor, 
2d Ser. iii. p. 6); also Gifford, in Speaker’s Comm., on Rom, iii. 23. 


13. πάντα ἰσχύω : ‘I can do all things.’ Not only all the things 
just mentioned, but everything. 


*Ioxvev and the kindred words ἰσχὺς, ἰσχυρὸς, are not of frequent 
occurrence in Paul. The meanings of ἐσχὺς and δύναμις (see ἐνδυναμοῦντι) 
often run together, as do those of δύναμις and ἐνέργεια. (See on iii, 21.) 
The general distinction, however, is that ἰσχὺς is indwelling power put 
forth or embodied, either aggressively, or as an obstacle to resistance; 
physical power organised, or working under individual direction. An army 
and a fortress are both ἰσχυρὸς. The power inhering in the magistrate, 
which is put forth in laws or judicial decisions, is ἰσχὺς, and makes the 
edicts ἰσχυρὰ, ‘valid,’ and hard to resist. Δύναμις is rather the indwelling 
power or virtue which comes to manifestation in ἰσχὺς. (See Schmidt, 
Synon. 148, 3, 4, 5.) For the accus. with ἰσχύειν, comp. Gal. v. 6. 


ἐν τῷ ἐνδυναμοῦντί we: ‘in him that strengtheneth me,’ or, more 
literally, ‘infuses strength into me.’ The ἐνδυν. appears in the 
ἰσχύω. 
Χριστω is added by κὸ DFGKLP. 


ἐν: Not ‘through,’ but ‘in’; for he is zz Christ (ili. 9). 
*Evdvvayoiv, mostly in Paul. (See Rom. iv. 20; Eph. vi. 10; 
1 Tim. i. 12.) With the thought here, comp. 2 Cor. xii. 9; 
1 Tim. i. 12; 2 Tim. ii. 1, iv. 17; and Ign. Smyr. iv., πάντα ὕπο- 
μένω, αὐτοῦ με ἐνδυναμοῦντος τοῦ τελείου ἀνθρώπου : “I endure all 
things, seeing that he himself enableth me who is perfect man.” 
Any possible misunderstanding of αὐτάρκης (vs. 11) is corrected 
by these words. 


He guards against a possible inference from his words that he 
lightly esteems their gift, or thinks it superfluous. Not, as Chr., 
(Ec., and Theoph., very strangely, that he feared lest his apparent 
contempt for the gift might dissuade them from similar acts in the 
future. It is characteristic that there is no formal expression of 
thanks beyond his recognition and commendation of the moral 
and spiritual significance of the act, in which he virtually acknow- 
ledges the benefit to himself. The best thanks he can give them 

δ : 


146 PHILIPPIANS [Iv. 13, 14 


is to recognise their fidelity to the principle of Christian love, and 
to see in their gift an expression of that principle. On the other 
hand, there is no attempt to conceal the fact that he was in real 
affliction (θλίψει), and that their act relieved it; and only the 
most perverted and shallow exegesis, such as Holsten’s, can read 
into his words an expression of indifference to the love displayed 
by the church, and describe them as “ thankless thanks,” or see 
in them a contradiction of 1 Thess. ii. 9. 


14. πλὴν : ‘nevertheless.’ (See on i. 18, ili. 16.) “ Neverthe- 
less, do not think that, because I am thus independent of earthly 
contingencies, I lightly prize your gift.’ 

καλῶς ἐποιήσατε : ‘ye did nobly.’ Positive and generous praise : 
not a mere acknowledgment that they had simply done their duty. 
It was a beautiful deed, true to the gospel ideal of καλὸς. For 
the phrase καλῶς ποιεῖν, see Mk. vii. 37; Lk. vi. 27; 1 Cor. vii. 37. 

συνκοινωνήσαντές μου TH θλίψει : ‘that ye made common cause 
with my affliction’; ‘went shares with’ (Lightf. on Gal. vi. 6). 
The A.V. ‘communicate’ is correct, if ‘communicate’ is under- 
stood in its older sense of ‘share,’ as Ben Jonson, “ thousands that 
communicate our loss.” (Comp. Rom. xii. 13.) The verb occurs 
only in Eph. v. 11 ; Apoc. xviii. 4. The participle, as the comple- 
ment of ἐποι., specifies the act in which the καλ. ἐποι. was exhibited. 
For the construction, comp. Acts v. 42; 2 Thess. iii. 13 ; Win. 
xlv. 4. The dative θλίψει expresses that with which common 
cause was made. 


Their gift is not the first and only one which he has received. 
It is a repetition of former acts of the same kind, a new outgrowth 
from his long and affectionate relations with them. He might 
justly expect and could honorably accept help from those who 
had been the first to minister to his necessities, and who had so 
often repeated their ministry. The idea of a guasi-apology for 
his reproach of the Philippians, because his former relations with 
them had justified his disappointment in not receiving earlier sup- 
plies (Chr., Gic., Theoph.), is utterly without foundation, since 
no reproach had been uttered or implied. ‘There is no specific 
praise of their earlier gifts, but the καλ. ἐποι. is confirmed by the 
fact that the last gift was a continued manifestation of the same 
spirit that had marked them from the beginning. 

Baur’s inference from 2 Cor. xi. 9, that the Philippians had been accus- 


tomed to send him a regular annual contribution which had now for some 
time been intermitted, requires no notice. 


Iv. 15] THE FIRST TO HELP 147 


15. οἴδατε δὲ καὶ ὑμεῖς Φιλιππήσιοι : ‘and ye also, Philippians, 
know.’ Aé passes on to the mention of former acts of liberality, 
or perhaps marks the contrast between the expression of his own 
judgment (vs. 14) and the appeal to their knowledge. Kai 
marks the comparison of the Philippians with the apostle himself. 
‘Ye as well as I.’ Not, as Calv., ‘ye as well as other witnesses 
whom I might cite.’ It is quite unnecessary to assume, as Hofn. 
and Weiss, any special sensitiveness of Paul in alluding to his rela- 
tions with other churches, which causes him to appeal to the 
knowledge of the Philippians. 

Φιλιππήσιοι : Paul is not accustomed thus to address his readers 
by name. (See 2 Cor. vi. 11; Gal. iii. 1.) The address is not 
intended to point a contrast with other churches, but expresses 
earnestness and affectionate remembrance. 

ore: ‘that.’ Habitual construction with οἶδα. (See i. 19, 25; 
1 Cor. ili. 16; Gal. iv. 13, etc.) Not ‘ because,’ as Hofn., whose 
explanation, ‘ye know that ye have done well because this is not 
the first time that you have sent me similar gifts,’ needs no com- 
ment. (See Mey. ad loc.) 

ἐν ἀρχῇ τοῦ εὐαγγελίου : ‘in the beginning of the gospel.’ The 
reference is clearly shown by the succeeding words to be to the 
first preaching of the gospel in Macedonia, about ten years before 
the composition of this letter. It is equivalent to ‘ when the gospel 
was first proclaimed among you.’ He alludes, no doubt, to money 
supplied before or at his departure from Macedonia (Acts xvii. 14). 


Some, as Lightf., De W., Weiss, refer to the contribution given at 
Corinth (2 Cor. xi. 9), in which case ἐξῆλθον must be rendered as pluperf. 
This, of course, is grammatically defensible. Lightf. says that as the 
entrance into Macedonia was one of the two most important stages in 
Paul’s missionary life, he speaks of his labors in Macedonia as the degin- 
ning of the gospel, though his missionary career was now half run. “The 
faith of Christ had, as it were, made a fresh start” (Bzd/ical Essays: “The 
Churches of Macedonia”). This is fanciful. (See Ramsay, S¢. Paz, 
the Traveller, etc. p. 199.) 


Explanations which assume to fix the exact points of corre- 
spondence between Paul’s statements here and the narrative in 
Acts must needs be tentative and indecisive. No doubt the 
different parts of the N.T., in some cases, exhibit “ undesigned 
coincidences” ; but in many other cases the coincidences are 
imperfect, or are altogether wanting. It is most unlikely that all 
the contributions of the Philippians to Paul were accurately chroni- 
cled by Luke. That Paul in vs. 16 mentions a contribution earlier 
than that noted in vs. 15 presents no difficulty. Having said that 
the Philippians were the very first to assist him on his departure 
from Macedonia, he emphasises that readiness by going back to a 
still earlier instance. ‘Not only on my departure, but even before 
I departed you were mindful of my necessities.’ 


a 


148 PHILIPPIANS [IVv. 15, 16 


Μακεδονίας : In Paul’s later letters he always prefers to mention 
provinces rather than cities in connection with his own travels, 
and does so in cases where a definite city might have been as 
properly referred to. (See Rom. xvi. 5; 1 Cor. xvi. 15 ; 2 Cor. 
li. 13, Vil. 5, Vill. 1, ix. 2, and Weizs. Apost. Zeit. p. 195.) 

pot... ἐκοινώνησεν : ‘became partner with me,’ or ‘ entered 
into partnership with me.’ See on συνκοιν., vs. 14. Comp. Ril., 
“‘ne se mit en rapport avec moi.” For the construction with dat. 
of the person, see Gal. vi. 6, and Ellic.’s note there. 

εἰς λόγον δόσεως καὶ λήμψεως : ‘as to an account of giving and 
receiving.’ ‘The matter is expressed in a mercantile metaphor. 
He means that the question of money given and received did not 
enter into his relations with any other church. The Philippians, 
by their contributions, had ‘opened an account’ with him. 

Others, as Ril. and Lightf., dismiss the metaphor and render εἰς λόγον 

‘as regards,’ or ‘ with reference to.’ This has classical but not N.T. prece- 

dent. (See Thuc. iii. 46; Dem. De alsa Leg. 385; Hat. iii. 99, vii. 9.) 

But the recurrence of λόγον in vs. 17, where the metaphor is unmistakable, 

seems to point to the other explanation. 

For ἐκοιν. εἰς comp. κοιν. εἰς (i. 5), and see Win. xxx. 8 a. ᾿κοιν. εἰς λόγ. 
forms one idea. For λόγος, in the sense of ‘account’ or ‘ reckoning,’ see 

Mt. xii. 36; Lk. xvi. 2; Rom. xiv. 12; and comp. Ign. Phz/ad. xi., εἰς λόγον 


τιμῆς, “as a mark of honor”; Smyr.x., ot ἐπηκολούθησάν μοι els λόγον θεοῦ; 
‘‘who followed me in the cause of God.” 


Aco. καὶ λήμψ., in the sense of credit and debt, occurs in LXX, 
Sir. xli. 19, xlii. 7. (Comp. Arist. £7. Με. ii. 7,4; Plat. Repub. 
332A.) Adovs in N.T. only here and Jas. 1. 170. The giving by 
the Philippians and the receiving by Paul form the two sides of 
the account. Chr., Theoph., Céc., Aug., followed by Calv., Weiss, 
Lips., and others, explain of an exchange: Paul giving spiritual 
gifts to the Philippians, and receiving their material gifts. This is 
possible, but seems far-fetched. 

εἰ μὴ ὑμεῖς μόνοι: ‘but ye only.’ (Comp. 1 Cor. ix. 6-18; 
2 Cor. xi. 7-10; 1 Thess. ii.g.) In all those cases he is speaking 
of rightful remuneration for apostolic service, and not, as here, of 
free offerings. 

16. orc: ‘ for,’ or ‘since,’ justifying the statement of vs.15. Not 
‘that,’ as Ril., Weiss, connecting with οἴδατε. 

καὶ ἐν Θεσσαλονίκῃ : ‘even in Thessalonica.” A Macedonian 
city, near Philippi, where a church was founded by Paul before 
his departure into Achaia (Acts xvii. 1-9) ; yet the contribution 
came from Philippi, and not from Thessalonica, and that while he 
was actually 7z Thessalonica. *Ev cannot be explained as ‘to.’ 

καὶ ἅπαξ καὶ dis: ‘not merely once, but twice.’ (Comp. 1 Thess. 
ii. 18.) 

εἰς τὴν χρείαν : ‘with reference to the (then) present need.’ 
Eis, as in i. 5 ; 2 Cor. ii. 12. Τὴν with a possessive sense, ‘ my,’ 
or ¢he particular need of the time. For χρείαν, comp. ii. 25. 


IV. 16, 17] THE GIFT WILL ENRICH THE GIVERS 149 


They are not, however, to understand him as implying that he 
desired their gifs principally for his own relief or enrichment. 
He prizes their gi‘t chiefly because their sending it will be fruitful 
in blessing to them. In vs. 11 he disclaimed the sense of want. 
Here he disclaims the desire for the gift in itself considered. 


17. οὐχ ore: See on vs. 11. 

ἐπιζητῶ : Used by Paul only here and Rom. xi. 7. The con- 
tinuous present, ‘I am seeking,’ characterising his habitual attitude. 

*Emi marks the direction, not the intensity of the action. See 
on ἐπιποθῶ, i. 8. 

τὸ δόμα: ‘the gift.’ In Paul only here and Eph. iv. 8. Not 
the particular gift which they had sent, but the gift as related to 
his characteristic attitude, and which might be in question in any 
similar case. 

ἀλλὰ ἐπιζητῶ : The verb is repeated in order to emphasise the 
contrary statement. (Comp. the repetitions in vs. 2, 12.) 

τὸν καρπὸν : ‘the fruit.’ (See on i. 11.) The recompense 
which the gift will bring to the givers. (Comp. 2 Cor. ix. 6.) 

τὸν πλεονάζοντα : ‘that increaseth’ or ‘aboundeth.’ The verb, 
which is often used by Paul, signifies large abundance. Paul does 
not use it transitively, exc. 1 Thess. iii. 12, though it is so found 
τος as. Num. παν! 54; \Ps. 1..(xlix:) 19; Ixxi.\(Ixx.) 235 1 
Macc. iv. 35. In class. mostly, ‘to superabound.’ It is associated 
with ὑπεραυξάνειν in 2 Thess. i. 3 (see Lightf. ad loc.), and with 
περισσεύειν in τ Thess. iii. 12. The phrase πλεον. εἰς is unique, 
since πλεον. habitually stands alone. In 2 Thess. i. 3, εἰς goes 
with ἀγάπη. For this reason, some, as De W., connect with 
ἐπιζητῶ: ‘I seek, with a view to your advantage, fruit which 
aboundeth,’ etc. But this is against the natural order of the 
sentence, since τὸν πλεον. εἰς Ady. tu. forms one idea in contrast 
with ἐπιζ. τ. δόμ. ; and, as Mey. justly remarks, the preposition is 
not determined by the word in itself, but by its logical reference. 

λόγον : ‘account’ or ‘reckoning,’ as vs. 15. The idea of ‘ inter- 
est’ (τόκος), as ΚΙ., is, perhaps, not exactly legitimate, though it 
suits the metaphor in πλεον. εἰς Ady., and καρπὸς is used in class. 
of profit from material things, as flocks, honey, wool, etc. Mey.’s 
objection that this sense is unsuited to δόμα is of little weight, 
since the δόμα might be figuratively regarded as an investment. 
It is arbitrary to limit the meaning to the future reward (Mey., 
Alf., Ellic.). The present participle may, indeed, signify, ‘which 
is rolling up a recompense to be awarded in the day of Christ’ ; 
but it may equally point to the blessing which is continually 
accruing to faithful ministry in the richer development of Christ- 
ian character. (Comp. Rom. vi. 21, 22.) Every act of Christian 
ministry develops and enriches him who performs it. (Comp. 


ae 


150 PHILIPPIANS [IVv. 17, 18 


Acts xx. 35.) Aug., distinguishing between the gift as such and 
the gift as the offering of a Christian spirit, sa 5 that a mere gift 
might be brought by a raven, as to Elijah. 

18. ἀπέχω δὲ πάντα : ‘and I have all things.’ Δὲ is not advers- 
ative, but connective, introducing an additional reason for οὐχ 
ἐπιζητῶ τὸ δόμα, ‘I do not seek the gift but the fruit; and as to 
my need, I have all that I could need.’ 


Otherwise Ellic., De W., Ead., Weiss, Alf., Vulg., who take δὲ as advers- 
ative. So Alf. “Azz, notwithstanding that the gift is not that which I 
desire, I have received it, and am sufficiently supplied by it.” This seems 
feeble and superfluous after the strong adversative ἀλλὰ. 


ἀπέχω : ‘I have to the full.’ Nothing remains for me to desire. 
᾿Απὸ marks correspondence ; 2.6. “ of the contents to the capacity ; 
of the possession to the desire” (Lightf.). (See Win. xl. 46.) So 
Mt. vi. 2. ‘They have their reward in full.” There is nothing 
more for them to receive. (Comp. Lk. vi. 24.) Not a formal 
acknowledgment of the gift, omitted in vs. 17 (Chr., Ciéc., 
Theoph.). 

καὶ περισσεύω : ‘and abound.’ Not only is my need met, but I 
have more than I could desire. On περισσεύειν see Lightf. on 
E TPhess/ aii. 12. 

πεπλήρωμαι: “1 am filled.’ Hardly the completion of a climax 
(Ellic.), since fulness is not an advance on περισσ. It rather 
introduces the following clause, which is an explanatory comment 
upon what precedes. 

δεξάμενος : Explanatory of πεπλ. “1 am filled, now that I have 
received.’ 

mapa ᾿Επαφροδίτου : See on ii. 25. 

τὰ παρ᾽ ὑμῶν : ‘the things sent from you’ (through him). Παρὰ 
emphasises. the idea of transmission, and marks the connection 
between the giver and the receiver, more than ἀπὸ, which merely 
points to the source. (See Win. xlvii.; Lightf. on Gal. i. 12; 
Schmidt, Syzon. 107, 18.) 

ὀσμὴν εὐωδίας : ‘an odor of a sweet smell.’ Their offering of 
love is described as a sweet-smelling sacrifice. ‘The expression is 
common in O.T. to describe a sacrifice acceptable to God. (See 
Gen. viii. 21; Lev. i. 9, 13, 17. Comp. 2 Cor. ii. 15, 16; Eph. 
v. 2.) ᾿Οσμὴν is in apposition with τὰ rap’ ὑμῶν ; εὐωδίας is genit. 
of quality. ᾿Οσμὴ is more general than εὐωδία, denoting an odor of 
any kind, pleasing or otherwise. 

θυσίαν : ‘a sacrifice.’ Not the act of sacrifice, but the thing 
sacrificed. (See onii.17.) Here in the same sense as Rom. xii. 1. 

δεκτήν : ‘acceptable.’ Rare in N.T., and only here by Paul, 
2 Cor. vi. 2 being a quotation. (See LXX; Lev. i. 3, 4, xix. 5, 
Xxil. 19.) 

εὐάρεστον : ‘well-pleasing,’ as Rom. xii. 1. In N.T. only in 


IV. 18, 19] GOD’S GLORIOUS SUPPLY 151 


Paul and Heb. (See Rom. xiv. 18; 2 Cor. v. 9; Eph. v. 10; 
ἘΠΕ xiii, 21 ; LXX; Sap. iv. τὸ; ix, 10.) 

τῷ θεῷ : Connect with both ὀσμ. edwd. and θυσ. 

19. 6 δὲ θεὸς μου πληρώσει πᾶσαν χρείαν ὑμῶν : ‘and my God 
shall fulfil every need of yours.’ Jy God who has made you his 
instruments in fulfilling my need (πεπλήρωμαι, vs. 18) will fulfil 
every need of yours. The δὲ is not adversative, ‘but’ (Beng., 
De W., A.V.), which would seem to emphasise the loss incurred 
in sacrifice by setting over against it the promise of the divine 
supply. It rather adds this statement to the preceding; and 
this statement expresses God’s practical approval of the Philip- 
pians’ offering, and not their compensation by him. (Comp. 
2 Cor. ix. 8-11.) 

κατὰ τὸ πλοῦτος αὐτοῦ : ‘according to his riches.’ The measure 
or standard of the supply; the infinite possibility, according to 
which the πληρώσει will be dispensed. 

ἐν δόξῃ : ‘in glory.’ The mode or manner of the fulfilment, 
‘gloriously’; in such wise that his glory will be manifested. 
Construe with πληρώσει, not with πλοῦτος (as Grot., Rhw., Heinr., 
A.V., R.V.), ‘riches in glory,’ which is contrary to N.T. usage, 
since δόξα with πλοῦτος is invariably in the genitive. See, e.g., τὸν 
πλοῦτον τῆς δόξης αὐτοῦ (Rom. ix. 23); and comp. Eph. i. 18, 
iil. 16; Col.i. 27. Ἔν δόξῃ is always used in connection with a 
verb (see 2 Cor. iii. 8, 11; Col. iii. 4), and so are all similar 
phrases, as ἐν ἀληθείᾳ, ἐν δυνάμει, ἐν δόλῳ, ἐν ἐξουσίᾳ, ἐν ἀδικίᾳ, ἐν 
ἀγάπῃ, etc. There is not in the N.T. a phrase like πλοῦτος ἐν 
δόξῃ. Comp. πληρώσῃ ἐν δυνάμει (2 Thess. i. 11). 


Mey. makes ἐν instrumental, though dependent on πληρώσει, ‘with 
glory,’ or ‘in that he gives them glory,’ and characterises the explanation 
given above as “indefinite and peculiarly affected,” in which he is followed 
by Alf., who calis it “weak and flat in the extreme.’’ Nevertheless it is 
adopted by Thay., Lips., De W., Calv., Ead., Weiss, ΚΙ. Comp. Rom. i. 4, 
where ἐν δυνάμει is adverbial with ὁρισθέντος, and 2 Cor. iii. 7, 8, 11. Mey.’s 
explanation is shaped by his persistent reference to the parousia, which 
narrows his interpretation of πλεονάζοντα in vs. 17. He cannot conceive 
how Paul, with his view of the farousia as imminent, could promise, oz 
this side of it,a glorious recompense. So Lightf. ‘ by placing you in glory.’ 
But πληρώσει is not to be limited to the future reward. It includes, with 
that, all that supply which God so richly imparts in this life to those who 
are in Christ. (See Jn. i. 16; 1 Cor. i. 5; Eph. iii. 16-20; Col. ii. 10.) 


ἐν Χριστῷ Ἰησοῦ: Not to be connected with δόξῃ, but with 
πληρώσει, as the domain in which alone the πληρώσει can take 
place. 

The dignity and tact with which Paul treats this delicate subject 
have been remarked by all expositors from the Fathers down. 
Lightf. has justly observed that Paul had given to the Philippians 
“the surest pledge of confidence which could be given by a high- 
minded and sensitive man, to whom it was of the highest import- 


152 PHILIPPIANS [Iv. 19, 20 


ance, for the sake of the great cause which he had advocated, to 
avoid the slightest breath of suspicion, and whose motives never- 
theless were narrowly scanned and unscrupulously misrepresented. 
He had placed himself under pecuniary obligations to them.” 
With his tone of manly independence and self-respect, mingles 
his grateful recognition of their care for him and a delicate con- 
sideration for their feelings. He will not doubt that they have 
never ceased to remember him, and have never relaxed their 
eagerness to minister to him, although circumstances have pre- 
vented their ministry. Yet he values their gift principally as an 
expression of the spirit of Christ in them, and as an evidence 
of their Christian proficiency. He can give their generosity no 
higher praise, no higher mark of appreciation and gratitude, than 
to say that it was a sacrifice of sweet odor to God. He is not 
raised above human suffering. Their gift was timely and wel- 
come ; yet if it had not come, he was independent of human con- 
tingencies. They have not only given him money, but they have 
given him Christian love and sympathy and ministry — fruit of his 
apostolic work. 


The promise just uttered, by its wonderful range and richness, 
calls forth an ascription of praise. 


20. ro δὲ θεῷ καὶ πατρὶ ἡμῶν : ‘to our God and Father’; the 
God who will supply every need out of his fatherly bounty. FF or 
the formula, see Gal. i. 4; 1 Thess... 3, iii. 11,13. Ἡμῶν proba- 
bly belongs to both nouns, since the article is unnecessary with 
θεῷ, and is apparently prefixed i in order to bind both nouns with 
the pronoun. On the other hand, Ellic. suggests that, as πατρὶ 
expresses a relative idea and θεὸς an absolute one, the defining 
genitive may be intended for πατρὶ only. (See Ellic. and Lightf. 
on Gal. i. 4.) 

cis τοὺς αἰῶνας τῶν αἰώνων : ‘to the ages of the ages.’ Forever. 
For the formula, see Gal. 1. 5; 1 Tim. 4: 1; 2° ΤΊ ὑτ Το Σ 
τ Ῥεῖ. iv. τι, and often in Hee LXX habitually in the singular ; 
εἰς TOV αἰῶνα τοῦ αἰῶνος (Ps. Ἰχχχίχ. 29 [Ixxxvili. 30], οχὶ. {Gears 
10); εἰς τοὺς αἰῶνας, omitting τῶν αἰώνων (Ps. Ixi. 4 [ 1x. 5], Ixxvii. 
[Ixxvi.] 8; 2 Chron. vi. 2). For similar doxologies in Paul’s 
letters, see Rom. xi. 36; Gal. 1.5; Eph, iu. 2: 301 ὙΠΠῚῚ Ἐν 
Paul has εἰς τοὺς αἰῶνας (Rom. i. 25, ΙΧ. 5, xi. 36) ; εἰς τὸν αἰῶνα 
(1 Cor. viii. 13 ; 2 Cor. ix. 9) ; εἰς πάσας τὰς yevedsyz00 αἰῶνος τῶν 
αἰώνων (Eph. iii. 21). Αἰὼν is a long space of time; an age; a 
cycle. In the doxology the whole period of duration is conceived 
as a succession of cycles, 


IV. 21, 22] CLOSING SALUTATIONS 153 


CLOSING SALUTATIONS 


21. πάντα ἅγιον : ‘every saint’; individually. Comp. πᾶσιν τοῖς 
ἁγίοις (i. 1) ; πάντας ἀδελφούς (1 Thess. v. 26) ; ἀλλήλους (Rom. 
avi. 16; 1 Cor. xvi. 20; 2 Cor. xiti. 12). The salutation: is 
probably addressed through the superintendents of the church 
(i. 1), into whose hands the letter would be delivered, and who 
would read it publicly. For ἅγιον, see on i. 1. 

ἐν Χριστῷ Ἰησοῦ: May be construed either with ἀσπάσασθε or 
with ἅγιον. The matter is unimportant. ᾿Ασπάζεσθαι with ἐν Xro 
does not occur in N.T.; with ἐν Κυρίῳ, τ Cor. xvi. 19. Ἅγιος 
with ἐν Xro 'I.,i.1. The passages commonly cited from the clos- 
ing salutations of Rom. are not decisive. The evidence is rather 
in favor of ἅγιον. It is true that ay. implies ἐν X.’I.; but the 
same reason may possibly apply here which is given by Chr. for 
the phrase in i. 1; namely, that he speaks of them as ‘saints,’ in 
the Christian as distinguished from the O.T. sense. 

οἱ σὺν ἐμοὶ ἀδελφοί: ‘the brethren who are with me.’ The 
circle of Paul’s immediate colleagues or more intimate friends. 
The apparent disagreement of these words with ii. 20 cannot be 
considered until we can explain the latter passage, which, with 
our present knowledge, seems hopeless. In any case, Paul would 
not withhold the name ‘brethren’ even from such as are described 
there. Probably there were equally unworthy members of the 
Philippian church, yet he addresses the whole body by that title 
(i. 12, iii. 1, iv. 1, 8). See, for a different view, Weiss in Amer. 
Jour. Theol, April, 1897, p. 391. 

22. πάντες οἱ ἅγιοι: The church-members in Rome generally, 
as distinguished from the smaller circle just named. 

μάλιστα δὲ οἱ ἐκ τῆς Καίσαρος οἰκίας : ‘ especially they that are of 
Czesar’s household.’ Οἰκία does not signify members of the im- 
perial family, but the whole ménxage of the imperial residence — 
slaves, freedmen, household servants, and other dependants, pos- 
sibly some of high rank. Freedmen, and even slaves, were often 
entrusted with high and confidential positions in the palace. The 
imperial establishment was enormous, and the offices and duties 
were minutely divided and subdivided. (See R. Lanciani’s 
Ancient Rome in the Light of Recent Excavations, p. 128 ff.) 
Many Christians were doubtless numbered among these retainers. 
Some have thought that οἰκία included the preetorian guard, mem- 
bers of which might have come from Macedonia; for though the 
preetorians were originally of Italian birth, they were drawn, later, 
from Macedonia, Noricum, and Spain, as well as from Italy. But 
this is improbable. I cannot do better than to refer the reader 
to Lightf.’s dissertation on “ Czsar’s Household,” Comm. p. 171, 
to which may be added Professor Sanday on Rom. Introd. p. xciv., 


154 PHILIPPIANS [Iv. 22, 23 


and notes on Ch. xvi., p. 422 ff. Lightf. argues, fairly I think, 
that, assuming the earlier date of the Philippian letter (see 
Introd. v.), the members of Czesar’s household who sent their 
salutations to Philippi were earlier converts who did not owe their 
knowledge of the gospel to Paul’s preaching at Rome; that Paul 
assumes the acquaintance of the Philippians with these, and that 
therefore we must look for them among the names in the closing 
salutations of the Roman Epistle, composed some three years 
before this letter. 

Why μάλιστα, cannot be explained. It may imply some pre- 
vious acquaintance of these persons with the Philippians. 

23. ἡ χάρις τοῦ κυρίου ᾿Ιησοῦ Χριστοῦ μετὰ τοῦ πνεύματος ὑμῶν: 
‘the grace of the Lord Jesus Christ be with your spirit.’ So 
Philem. 25 ; Gal. vi. 18. 


For μετα Tov πνευματος, TR reads μετα παντων with x° KL, Syr.4tr, 
x ADKLP, Vulg., Cop., Syr.¥**, Arm., Aéth., add αμην, which is omitted 
by WH., Tisch., Weiss, with BFG, 47, Sah. 


"δὶ ἐξ. 


THE EPISTLE OF ST. PAUL TO 
| - PHILEMON ae?) 


ἘΠΕ EPISTLE OF Sty PAUL TO 
PHILEMON 


INTRODUCTION 


PHILEMON was a citizen of Colosse. Onesimus, his slave, is 
described in the Epistle to the Colossians as “ one of you” (iv. 9) ; 
while in the letter to Philemon, written and sent at the same time, 
the return of Onesimus to his master is announced (10, 12, 17). 


The opinion of Wieseler (Chron. des Apost. Zettal.), that both Philemon 
and Archippus belonged to Laodiczea, and that the epistle was therefore 
sent to that place, is entitled to no weight. He assumes that the Epistle 
to Philemon was identical with the Epistle to Laodiczea (Col. iv. 16. See 
note on vs. 2). Equally unimportant is the view of Holtzn. (Zz/. 246), 
which places Philemon and his household at Ephesus. 


That Philemon had been converted to Christianity through 
Paul’s ministry, appears from vs. 19. The conversion of the 
Colossians is probably to be connected with the apostle’s long 
residence at Ephesus, from which city his influence seems to have 
extended very widely. (See Acts xix. 26, and comp. the saluta- 
tion to the Corinthian church from “ the churches in Asia,’’ 1 Cor. 
xvi. 19.) We do not hear of his visiting the neighboring cities, 
but people from these came to Ephesus to listen to his teach- 
ings (Acts xix. 9, 10), since the relations were very close between 
that city and the cities of the Lycus. (See Lightf. Zutrod. 0 
Colossians, Ὁ. 31.) 

From this epistle it appears that Philemon was active and 
prominent in Christian work at Colossz, and very helpful in his 
ministries to his fellow-Christians (vs. 5, 7). His house was a 
meeting-place for a Christian congregation, and the apostle’s rela- 
tions with him were intimate and affectionate (vs. 2, 13, 17, 22).. 

157 


158 INTRODUCTION 


The traditions which represent him as a presbyter, bishop, or 
deacon, are valueless. In the Menaea' of Nov. 22, he is com- 
memorated as a “holy apostle.” (See Lightf. Zgz. 11. p. 535.) 

Onesimus, Philemon’s slave, had run away from him, and had 
possibly robbed him. (See on vs. 18.) He had found his way to 
Rome, and had there met Paul. Perhaps, in former days, he had 
accompanied his master in his visits to Ephesus, and had seen the 
apostle there. Through Paul’s influence he became a Christian 
(vs. 10), and devoted himself to the service of the Lord’s pris- 
oner. Paul had conceived a strong personal affection for him 
(vs. 10-13, 16, 17, comp. Col. iv. 9), and would gladly have kept 
him with himself; but was unwilling to do so without Philemon’s 
consent (vs. 14). Moreover, Onesimus, by his flight, had deprived 
his master of his services, if he had not also robbed him of prop- 
erty ; and therefore, as a Christian, was bound to make restitu- 
tion. Accordingly, as Tychicus was about to go to Colossze and 
Laodiczea bearing letters from Paul, the apostle placed Onesimus 
in his charge, and sent by him this letter to Philemon, in which he 
related the slave’s faithful ministries to himself, commended his 
Christian fidelity and zeal, entreated his master to receive him 
kindly, and offered himself as surety for whatever loss Philemon 
had suffered by him. 

All that is known of Onesimus is that he was a slave, and a 
Phrygian slave, which latter fact would mark him in common 
estimation as of poor quality. 


Suidas gives the proverb: Φρὺξ ἀνὴρ πληγεὶς ἄμεινον καὶ διακονέστερος, 
‘a Phrygian is the better and the more serviceable for a beating.’ It is 
quoted by Cicero (Pro Flacco, 27. See Wallon, Histoire de l’Esclavage 
dans l’Antiquité, ii. p. 61, 62). 


The martyrologies make him bishop of Ephesus (see Ign. 
Eph. i.) and of Beroea in Macedonia, and represent him as 
laboring for the gospel in Spain, and suffering martyrdom at 
Rome. 

His name appears in the AZenaea of Feb. 15, where he is called a slave 


of Philemon, a Roman man, to whom the holy Apostle Paul writes. It is 
further said that he was arraigned before Tertullus, the prefect of the 


1 Menaea, from μήν, "ἃ month’: corresponding, in the Greek Church, to the 
Roman Breviary, and containing for each holiday and feast of the year the ap- 
pointed prayers and hymns, together with short lives of the saints and martyrs. 


INTRODUCTION 159 


country, sent to Puteoli, and put to death by having his legs broken. The 
Roman Acts, 10, speak of him as perfected by martyrdom in the great city 
of the Romans. 


The letter was included in the collection of Marcion, and is 
named in the Muratorian Canon in connection with the Past- 
oral Epistles. The supposed references in Ignatius (ZA. ii.; 
Mag. xii.; Polyc. vi.) are vague. In ZA. ii. the name Onesimus 
occurs in connection with the verb ὀναίμην, and the reference 
is inferred from a similar play on the name, Philem. 20. (See 
Westcott, Canon of the N.T., p. 48.) It is found in the Syriac 
and Old Latin versions, and is ascribed to Paul by Origen (Hom. 
in Jer. 19; Comm. in Mz. tract. 33, 34.) Tertullian is the first 
who distinctly notices it. He says: “ This epistle alone has had 
an advantage from its brevity ; for by that it has escaped the falsi- 
fying touch of Marcion. Nevertheless, I wonder that when he 
receives one epistle to one man, he should reject two to Timothy, 
and one to Titus which treat of the government of the church” 
(Adv. Mare. ν. 42). Eusebius (77. £. ili. 25) puts it among the 
ὁμολογούμενα. Jerome, in his preface to his commentary on the 
epistle, refers to those who hold that it was not written by Paul, or 


if by him, not under inspiration, because it contained nothing to | 


edify. These also alleged that it was rejected by most of the 
ancients because it was a letter of commendation and not of 
instruction, containing allusions to everyday matters. Jerome 
replies that all St. Paul’s letters contain allusions to such matters, 
and that this letter would never have been received by all the 
churches of the world if it had not been Paul’s. Similar testi- 
mony is given by Chrysostom, who, like Jerome, had to defend 
the letter against the charge of being on a subject beneath the 
apostle’s notice. 

The only serious attack upon the epistle in modern times is 
that of Baur, who intimates that he rejects it with reluctance, and 
exposes himself by so doing to the charge of hypercriticism. 
“This letter,” he says, ‘is distinguished by the private nature of 
its contents ; it has nothing of those commonplaces, those general 
doctrines void of originality, those repetitions of familiar things 
which are so frequent in the supposed writings of the apostle. It 
deals with a concrete fact, a practical detail of ordinary life... . 
What objection can criticism make to these pleasant and charming 


160 INTRODUCTION 


lines, inspired by the purest Christian feeling, and against which 
suspicion has never been breathed?” (Paulus). Rejecting 
Ephesians, Philippians, and Colossians, he is compelled to reject 
Philemon along with them. The diction is unpauline. Words 
and expressions occur which are either not found at all in Paul’s 
epistles, or only in those which Baur rejects. The epistle exhibits 
a peculiar conjunction of circumstances in the flight of Onesimus 
and his meeting St. Paul at Rome, which savors of romance. The 
letter is the embryo of a Christian romance like the Clementine 
Recognitions, intended to illustrate the idea that what man loses 
in time in this world he regains forever in Christianity; or that 
every believer finds himself again in each of his brethren. 

Holtzmann is inclined to receive the epistle, but thinks that 
the passage 4-6 shows the hand of the author of the Ephesian 
letter. 

Weizsacker (Afost. Zeital. p.545) and Pfleiderer (Paulinismus, 
p. 44) hold that the play on the name Onesimus proves the letter 
to be allegorical (see note on vs. 11). 

Steck thinks that he has discovered the germ of the letter in 
two epistles of the younger Pliny. 

It is needless to waste time over these. They are mostly 
fancies. The external testimony and the general consensus of 
critics of nearly all schools are corroborated by the thoroughly 
Pauline style and diction, and by the exhibition of those personal 
traits with which the greater epistles have made us familiar. The 
letter, as already remarked, was written and sent at the same time 
with that to the Colossians. Its authenticity goes to establish that 
of the longer epistle. ‘ In fact,” remarks Sabatier, “ this short 
letter to Philemon is so intensely original, so entirely innocent of 
dogmatic preoccupation, and Paul’s mind has left its impress so 
clearly and indelibly upon it, that it can only be set aside by an 
act of sheer violence. Linked from the first with the Colossian 
and Ephesian Epistles, it is virtually Paul’s own signature appended 
as their guarantee to accompany them through the centuries” 
(The Apostle Paul, Hellier’s trans.). 

The general belief from ancient times has been that this, with 
the Colossian and Ephesian letters, was composed at Rome ; but 
the opinion which assigns their composition to Czsarea has hac! 
‘some strong advocates, among whom may be named Reuss, 


INTRODUCTION 161 


Schenkel, Weiss, Holtzmann, Hilgenfeld, Hausrath, and Meyer. 
The principal arguments are the following : 

1. It is more natural and probable that the slave should have 
fled from Colosse to Czesarea, than that he should have under- 
taken a long sea voyage to Rome. 

On the contrary, it is more natural and probable that Onesimus 
should have gone to Rome as quickly as possible, both because it 
was farther away from Colossze, and because there would be much 
less chance of detection in the vast city and population of the 
metropolis. 

2. According to Phil. ii. 24, Paul intended, if liberated, to go 
directly to Macedonia; whereas, according to Philem. 22, he pro- 
posed to go to Colossze. On this, see note on Philem. 22. 

3. The absence from the Colossian Epistle of any mention of 
the earthquake by which the cities of the Lycus had been visited. 
According to Tacitus, an earthquake overthrew Laodiczea in the 
year 60 4.D., the last year of Paul’s imprisonment at Czsarea. 
According to Eusebius (Chron, Ol. 210), the date is four years 
later, and Laodicza, Hierapolis, and Colosse are named as hay- 
ing suffered. Assuming that Tacitus and Eusebius refer to the 
same event, and that Tacitus’ date is correct, the omission of 
reference in the letter written at Caesarea is explained by the fact 
that the letter preceded the event. But if the letter was written 
during the latter part of the Roman imprisonment, the omission 
of all reference to such an event is incredible. (See Weiss, Zzn/. 
§ 24; Lightf. Colosscans, Introd. p. 37 ; Hort, Romans and Ephe- 
SIQNS, P. 105.) 

It is possible to found a valid argument upon an earthquake ; 
but in this case the tremors of the earthquake pervade the 
argument. Nothing more indecisive can be imagined than this 
process of reasoning. The argument e sz/entio is always suspicious, 
and, in this instance, proves absolutely nothing. Assuming all 
the premises to be definitely settled, it does not follow that the 
apostle must have referred to the earthquake. But the premises 
are not settled. Which is right, Tacitus or Eusebius? Sup- 
posing Eusebius to be right, the Roman, as well as the Cesarean 
captivity, might have preceded the earthquake. If St. Paul 
arrived in Rome in 56 (see Introd. to Philippians, iv.), his im- 
prisonment was over before the dates assigned by both Tacitus 

M 


162 INTRODUCTION 


and Eusebius. What is the date of Paul’s departure from Czesarea? 
What are the exact dates of the Epistles of the Captivity? Do 
Tacitus and Eusebius refer to the same event? Both Lightf. and 
Hort quote Herzberg’s supposition that the two notices refer to 
two different earthquakes, and that, since Tacitus mentions Laodi- 
cea only, the first one did not extend to Colossz. 

It may be added that the plans of the apostle, as indicated in both 
Philippians and Philemon, agree better with the hypothesis of the 
Roman captivity. In Cesarea all his plans would have pointed to 
Rome. Moreover, his situation in Rome, if we may judge from 
the account in Acts, afforded the slave much greater facilities for 
intercourse with him than he could have had in Cesarea. 

This letter cannot be appreciated without some knowledge of 
the institution of slavery among the Romans, and its effect upon 
both the slave and the master. Abundant information on this 
subject is furnished by the elaborate work of Wallon (Aiistotre de 
2? Esclavage dans 1 Antiquité, 2d ed. 1879), by the Roman jurists 
and the Roman codes, and by the comedians and satirists. The 
excursus on the slaves, in Becker’s Gadus, trans. by Metcalfe, will 
also be found very useful, and ch. ii. and iv. of Lecky’s Hs/ory 
of European Morals will repay reading. 

Slavery grew with the growth of the Roman state until it 
changed the economic basis of society, doing away with free 
labor, and transferring nearly all industries to the hands of slaves. 
The exact numbers of the slave population of the Empire cannot 
be determined ; but they were enormous. ‘Tacitus speaks of the 
city of Rome being frightened at their increase (Amn. xiv. 45) ; 
and Petronius (37) declared his belief that not a tenth part of 
the slaves knew their own masters. (See Wallon, Liv. ii. ch. iii.) 
Most of them were employed on the country estates, but hundreds 
were kept in the family residences in the cities, where every kind 
of work was deputed to them. In the imperial household, and in 
the houses of nobles and of wealthy citizens, the minute subdi- 
visions of labor, and the number of particular functions to each of 
which a slave or a corps of slaves was assigned, excite our laughter. 
(See note on Phil. iv. 22.) Some of these functions required 
intelligence and culture. The /amz/ia or slave-household included 
not only field-laborers and household. drudges, but architects, 
sculptors, painters, poets, musicians, librarians, physicians, readers 


INTRODUCTION 163 


who beguiled the hours at the bath or at the table, — ministers, 
in short, to all forms of cultivated taste, no less than to common 
necessities. 


On slaves as physicians, see Lanciani, Ancient Rome, etc. p. 71 ff. 


But, no matter what his particular function, the slave, in the 
eye of the law, was a chattel, a thing, inventoried with oxen and 
wagons (Varro, De Re Rust. i. 17,1). He could be given, let, 
sold, exchanged, or seized for debt. His person and his life 
were absolutely in the power of his master. Every one will recall 
the familiar passage of Juvenal (vi. 28), in which a dissolute 
woman of fashion orders the crucifixion of a slave, and refuses to 
give any reason save her own pleasure. ‘Hoc volo, sic jubeo, sit 
pro ratione voluntas.” The slave had no right of marriage. He 
was allowed concubinage (contubernium), and such alliances were 
regulated by the master. The master’s caprice in the matter of 
punishment was unlimited. Sometimes the culprit was degraded 
from the house to the field or the workshop, and was often com- 
pelled to work in chains (Ter. Phorm. ii. 1,17; Juv. viii. 180). 
Sometimes he was scourged, sometimes branded on the forehead, 
or forced to carry the furca, a frame shaped like a V, and placed 
over the back of the neck on the shoulders, the hands being 
bound to the thighs. He might be crucified or thrown to wild 
beasts, or to voracious fish. 

The moral effects of such an institution upon both slave and 
master it would not be difficult to predict, and they meet the 
student in every phase of Roman life, — domestic, social, and 
political. There was, first, the fearfully significant fact that a 
whole vast section of the population was legally deprived of the 
first element of manhood, — self-respect. No moral consideration 
could be expected to appeal to a chattel to prevent his seeking 
his own interest or pleasure by any means, however bad. He 
gave himself up to his own worst passions, and ministered, for his 
own gain, to the worst passions of his master, all the more as he 
stood higher in the scale of intelligence, and acquired thereby a 
certain influence and power. Knowledge and culture furnished 
him for subtler and deeper villainy. His sense of power and his 
love of intrigue were gratified when he came, as he often did, 
between members of the same family, making of one a dupe, 


164 INTRODUCTION 


and of the other an accomplice, an ally, and sometimes a slave. 
Every circumstance of his life was adapted to foster in him 
viciousness, low cunning, falsehood, and treachery. 

On the master the effect was that which always follows the pos- 
session of absolute authority without legal or moral restraint. It 
encouraged a tyrannical and ferocious spirit. It was demoralising 
even to the best and the most kindly disposed. It made beasts of 
the naturally licentious and cruel. It corrupted the family life. 
The inevitable and familiar contact of childhood and youth with 
the swarm of household slaves could have but one result, fatal 
alike to personal virtue and to domestic union. 

It is true there was another side. Affectionate relations be- 
tween master and slave were not uncommon. The younger Pliny 
expressed his deep sorrow for the death of some of his slaves 
(2. viii. 16). Instances of heroic devotion on the part of slaves 
are on record. The slave had a right to whatever he might save 
out of his allowance of food and clothing, and with it he some- 
times purchased his freedom (Ter. Phorm. i. 1,9). There were 
frequent cases of manumission. Although the slave’s marriage 
was not recognised, it was not customary forcibly to separate him 
from his companion. Yet, after the best has been said, these 
were exceptions which proved the rule. Confronting them are 
the pictures of Terence, Plautus, Petronius, Tacitus, Juvenal, and 
Persius. It was the institution that was demoralising. Its evil 
possibilities were inherent, and any one of a hundred causes 
might bring them into full play. Wallon remarks that “ for public 
depravity to reach its utmost depths of licentiousness, there 
needed to be a being with the passions and attractions of a man, 
yet stripped by public opinion of all the moral obligations of a 
human being, all whose wildest excesses were lawful provided they 
were commanded by a master.” 

The evil created and carried in itself its own retribution. 
Every wrong is expensive ; and it is the unvarying testimony of 
history that the price of slavery is paid, both materially and mor- 
ally, to the last penny, and with compound interest, by the masters. 
The price was not discounted by emancipation. Emancipation 
might change the political standing of the slave, but it did not 
change the slave. Rome had trained her later generation of free- 
men as slaves, and she reaped what she had sown. The emanci- 


INTRODUCTION 165 


pated slave carried into his free condition the antecedents, the 
habits, the spirit, the moral quality of a slave. The time came 
when the majority of the free population were either freedmen or 
descended from slaves. ‘Tacitus tells of their insolence and in- 
subordination (Azz. ΧΙ]. 26, 27). The slave-taint crept into the 
offices of state. Labor was stigmatised and its avenues were 
barred to the free poor. Almost every sphere of industry was 
occupied by slaves, and the free poor became literally paupers, 
dependent upon the imperial doles of bread. 

The attitude of the great Christian apostle towards this institu- 
tion is, naturally, a subject of much interest; and this epistle, 
which represents that attitude in a practical issue, has therefore 
figured in most discussions on the moral aspect of slavery. These 
discussions have developed two errors, against which it is import- 
ant to guard. On the one hand, the epistle has been regarded as 
committing St. Paul to the concession of the abstract rightfulness 
and of the divine sanction of slavery. On the other hand, it has 
been claimed that the epistle represents him as the enemy and 
the condemner of slavery, and as working with a conscious intent 
for its abolition by the deep and slow process of fostering Christian 
sentiment. Neither of these views expresses the whole truth of 
the case. 

It is more than questionable whether St. Paul had grasped the 
postulate of the modern Christian consciousness that no man has 
the right to own another. He had been familiar with slavery 
all his life, both in his Hebrew and in his Gentile associations. 
Hebrew law, it is true, afforded the slave more protection than 
Greek or Roman law, and insured his ultimate manumission ; 
none the less, the Hebrew law assumed the right to own human 
beings. The tendency is much too common to estimate the 
leaders of the primitive church in the light of nineteenth-century 
ideas, and to attribute to a sentiment which was only beginning 
to take shape, the maturity and definiteness which are behind its 
appeal to us, and which are the growth of centuries. It is safe to 
say that St. Paul was a good way removed from the point of view 
of the modern abolitionist. If he had distinctly regarded the 
institution of slavery as wrong, fer se, there is every reason for 
believing that he would have spoken out as plainly as he did con- 
cerning fornication; whereas there is not a word to that effect 


166 INTRODUCTION 


nor a hint of such an opinion in his epistles. In this epistle, 
and wherever he alludes to the subject, the institution of slavery 
is recognised and accepted as an established fact with which he 
does not quarrel, as a condition which has its own opportunities 
for Christian service and its own obligations which the Christian 
profession enforces. In 1 Cor. vii. 21 ff. he advises the bonds- 
man to use and improve his condition for the service of God, 
and to abide in it, even though he may have the opportunity of 
becoming free." 

In Eph. vi. 5-8 and Col. iii. 22, 23 he enjoins the obedience of 
slaves to their masters as a Christian duty. They are to serve 
their masters as servants of God. 

Hence it is, I think, a mistake to regard Paul’s silence concern- 
ing the iniquity of the institution as caused by the obvious hope- 
lessness of eradicating a long-established, deeply rooted, social 
factor. 1 cannot agree with the view so graphically presented 
by Dr. Matheson (Spiritual Development of St. Paul, ch. xiii.), 
that Paul recognised Onesimus’ right to freedom, but refrained 
from exhorting him to claim his right, because his connivance at 
Onesimus’ flight would have been the signal for a servile insurrec- 
tion and consequent anarchy. It is equally a mistake to say that 
he consciously addressed himself to the task of abolishing slavery 
by urging those aspects of the gospel which, in their practical 
application, he knew would eventually undermine it. It is not 
likely that he saw the way to its destruction at all. 

On the other hand, this by no means commits the apostle 
to the indorsement of the abstract rightfulness of slavery. It 
is only to say that if that question presented itself to his own 
mind, he did not raise it. The same thing, for that matter, may 
be said of Christ, and of God in the administration of the Old- 
Testament economy. The fact is familiar that God temporarily 
recognised, tolerated, and even legalised certain institutions and 
practices, as polygamy, for instance, which New-Testament moral- 
ity condemns, which he purposed ultimately to abolish, and which 
Christ does abolish. 

Paul knew and appreciated the actual abuses and the evil possi- 


1 My view of this disputed passage differs from that of Bishop Lightfoot and 
Canon Evans. (See Lightf. Jtvod. to Philemon, p. 390, and Evans, Speaker's 
Comm. ad loc.) 


INTRODUCTION 167 


bilities of slavery: yet it is quite possible that he may not have 
looked beyond such an operation of gospel principles as might rid 
the institution of its abuses without destroying it. What we see 
is, that he addressed himself to the regulation, and not to the de- 
struction, of existing relations. He does see that the slave is more 
than a chattel (Philem. 10-12, 16). The Christian bondservant 
is the Lord’s freedman (1 Cor. vii. 22). The difference between 
bond and free lapses in Christ with the difference between uncir- 
cumcision and circumcision, between Greek and Jew, between 
male and female (1 Cor. xii. 13; Gal. ili. 28). He does see that 
the Christian master has a duty to the slave no less than a right 
over him, and on this duty he insists (Eph. vi. 9; Col. iv. 1; 
Philem. 8-12, 15, 17). 

The slave, too, was quick to perceive this, and discerned in 
Christianity his only prospect of betterment. It is true that Plato 
and Aristotle, Zeno, Epicurus, and Seneca had insisted on the 
duty of humanity to slaves. Seneca urged that the accident of 
position does not affect the real dignity of man; that freedom 
and slavery reside in virtue and vice rather than in outward con- 
dition, and that a good man should abstain from even the feeling 
of contempt for his slaves (De Benef. 111. 18-28 ; De Vita Beata, 
xxiv. ; . xlvii.). Truthful and noble sentiments these, but they 
did not reach far beyond the cultivated classes ; they did little or’ 
nothing to engender moral aspiration in the slave, and their com- 
paratively superficial and limited influence is shown by the condi- 
tion of the slave during the prevalence of Stoicism. The slave 
sought his refuge where such sentiments were enforced by love 
rather than by philosophy; where they healingly touched those 
“accidents of position’? and those “outward conditions,” of 
which philosophy declared him independent, but from which, 
with their accompanying wrongs and cruelties and degradations, 
he could not extricate himself; and hence the fact that the early 
church was so largely recruited from the ranks of slaves. 

Whatever may have been the range of Paul’s outlook, the policy 
which he pursued vindicated itself in the subsequent history of 
slavery. The principles of the gospel not only curtailed its abuses, 
but destroyed the thing itself; for it could not exist without its 
abuses. ΤῸ destroy its abuses was to destroy it. It survived for 
centuries, but the Roman codes showed more and more the 


168 INTRODUCTION 


impress of Christian sentiment. The official manumission of 
slaves became common as an act of piety or of gratitude to God ; 
and sepulchral paintings often represent the master standing 
before the Good Shepherd with a band of slaves liberated at his 
death, pleading for him at the last judgment. Each new ruler 
enacted some measure which facilitated emancipation. “No one 
can carefully study the long series of laws, from Constantine to 
the tenth century, in regard to slavery, without clearly seeing the 
effect of Christianity. It is true that the unjust institution still 
survived, and some of its cruel features remained ; but all through 
this period the new spirit of humanity is seen struggling against 
it, even in legislation, which is always the last to feel a new moral 
power in society. The very language of the acts speaks of the 
inspiration of the Christian faith ; and the idea which lay at the 
bottom of the reforms, the value of each individual, and his 
equality to all others in the sight of God, was essentially Christian. 
But laws are often far behind the practices of a community. The 
foundation-idea of Christ’s principles compelled his followers to 
recognise the slave as equal with the master. They sat side by 
side in church, and partook of the communion together. By the 
civil law, a master killing his slave accidentally by excessive pun- 
ishment was not punished, but in the church he was excluded 
from communion. The chastity of the slave was strictly guarded 
by the church. Slave priests were free. The festivals of religion 
—the Sundays, fast-days, and days of joy — were early connected 
in the church with the emancipation of those in servitude. The 
consoling words of Christ, repeated from mouth to mouth, and 
the hope which now dawned on the world through him, became 
the especial comfort of that great multitude of unhappy persons, 
—the Roman bondsmen. The Christian teachers and clergymen 
became known as ‘the brothers of the slave,’ and the slaves them- 
selves were called ‘the freedmen of Christ’” (Charles L. Brace, 
Gesta Christi). 

Tributes to the beauty, delicacy, and tact of the Epistle to 
Philemon come from representatives of all schools, from Luther 
and Calvin to Renan, Baur, and von Soden. A number of these 
have been collected by Lightfoot (Introd. p. 383 ff.). The letter 
has been compared with one addressed by the younger Pliny to a 
friend on a somewhat similar occasion. “ Yet,” to quote Bishop 


INTRODUCTION 169 


Lightfoot, ‘‘if purity of diction be excepted, there will hardly be 
any difference of opinion in awarding the palm to the Christian 
apostle. As an expression of simple dignity, of refined courtesy, 
of large sympathy, and of warm personal affection, the Epistle to 
Philemon stands unrivalled. And its preéminence is the more 
remarkable because in style it is exceptionally loose. It owes 
nothing to the graces of rhetoric; its effect is due solely to the 
spirit of the writer.” ‘We delight to meet with it,” says Sabatier, 
“on our toilsome road, and to rest awhile with Paul from his great 
controversies and fatiguing labors in this refreshing oasis which 
Christian friendship offered to him. We are accustomed to con- 
ceive of the apostle as always armed for warfare, sheathed in 
logic, and bristling with arguments. It is delightful to find him 
at his ease, and for a moment able to unbend, engaged in this 
friendly intercourse, so full of freedom and even playfulness.” 


~~ 


’ 

Pat : 

᾿ »γ: Ἧ + 
+4 


i Li's ae #8 
ἢ δ δ. 


ὦ 


Νὴ) 
! ΄ 
' 
hee ene 
: 
Ἀ 


: : TEXT ᾿ 
; ἴς ΘῈΕ INTRODUCTION TO PHILIPPIANS. _ | Bi ue 


4 ῷ, 


i 4 
0 y ! 


ΓΝ. 


γ ey es ᾿ 
Ran ane: 


ὦ 


COMMENTARIES 


PATRISTIC 


Chrysostom, Theodore of Mopsuestia, Theodoret, Gicumenius, 
Theophylact. (See under Commentaries on Philippians.) 


SIXTEENTH AND SEVENTEENTH CENTURIES 


L. Danus or DANZU: 1579 Sc. GENTILIS: 1618 
R. ROLLOCK: 1598 T. TAYLOR: 1659 
D. DYKE: 1618 J. H. HUMMEL: 1670 
MODERN 
AucG. KocH: 1846. 


J. Ὁ. WIESINGER: 1850. Trans. by Fulton: 1851. Rev. and notes, A.C. 
Kendrick, 1858. 


H. EwWALp: 1857. 
J. J. VAN OOSTERZEE: Lange’s Bibelwerk. Schaff’s ed. Notes by Hackett, 
1869. 


Lp. ΒΡ. oF DERRY: Speaker's Comm. 

HuGurs OLTRAMARE: Commentaire sur les Epitres de S. Paul aux Colossiens 
aux Ephésiens et ἃ Philémon. 1891. Good and 
scholarly, but adds nothing of special value to for- 
mer commentaries. 

H. von SODEN: Hand-Commentar. Bd. iii. Valuable. See Comms. 
on Philippians, Lipsius. 


For Bengel, Calvin, Alford, Meyer, Lightfoot, Beet, De Wette, 
Ellicott, Lumby, Dwight, Hackett, see under Commentaries on 
Philippians. 


173 


TO PHILEMON 


THE SALUTATION 


1-3. Paul a prisoner of Christ Jesus, and Timothy the brother, 
to Philemon our beloved and fellow-laborer, and to Apphia our 
sister, and to Archippus our fellow-soldier, and to the church which 
assembles in thy house: Grace be unto you, and peace from God 
our Father, and from the Lord Jesus Christ. 


1. δέσμιος Χριστοῦ Ἰησοῦ : ‘a prisoner of Christ Jesus.’ (Comp. 
Eph. iii. 1.) In fetters because of his labors as an apostle of 
Christ. These words, at once awakening special interest and 
compassion, prepare the way for the apostle’s request. ‘The title 
‘apostle ’ is laid aside as not befitting a private and friendly letter. 

Τιμόθεος : The name of Timothy is associated with that of Paul 
in 2 Cor., Phil., Col., 1 and 2 Thess. Here each has a separate 
designation. Comp. Phil.i. 1, where they are joined under the com- 
mon title δοῦλοι Χτοῦ Ἰησοῦ. When Paul names others with him- 
self in the address, it is usually because of the relations of those 
named to the church addressed. The mention of Timothy here 
may be owing to personal relations between him and Philemon; 
so that the appeal would be the stronger by the addition of Timo- 
thy’s name. Timothy appears to have been with Paul during a 
-great part of his three years’ residence in Ephesus. He may have 
become acquainted with Philemon there. 

6 ἀδελφὸς : Thus also are designated Quartus, Rom. xvi. 23; 
Sosthenes, 1 Cor. i. 1; Apollos, 1 Cor. xvi. 12. Timothy is not 
called an apostle. (See 2 Cor.i. 1; Col.i. 1.) Although Paul 
does not confine the name of apostle to the twelve (see Rom. 
xvi. 7; 1 Cor. ix. 5, 6), the having been an eyewitness of the 
risen Christ was an indispensable condition of the apostolate ; 
and Timothy was a late convert, residing at Lystra, far distant 
from the scene of Christ’s personal ministry. (See Lightf. on 
“The Name and Office of an Apostle,” Comm. on Galatians, 
Ρ- 92.) 

Φιλήμονι : See Introduction. 


175 


176 PHILEMON [1,2 


τῷ ἀγαπητῷ καὶ συνεργῷ ἡμῶν : ‘our beloved and fellow-laborer.’ 
(Comp. Acts xv. 25.) Theoph. says: εἰ ἀγαπητός, δώσει τὴν χάριν, 
εἰ συνεργός, οὐ καθέξει τὸν δοῦλον ἀλλὰ πάλιν ἀποστελεῖ πρὸς ὑπηρεσίαν 
τοῦ κηρύγματος. “If beloved, he will grant the favor ; if a fellow- 
worker, he will not retain the slave, but will send him forth again 
for the service of preaching.” 


Weizsacker’s statement (Afost. Zeit. p. 333) that ἀγαπητός applied by 
Paul to individuals indicates that they were his own converts, needs more 
evidence than 1s furnished by Rom. xvi. 5, 8, 9, 12. 


συνεργὸς : Only in Paul and 3 Jn. 8. (See Rom. xvi. 3, 9, 21; 
Phil, ii. 26; Col, iy. 1z;,ete.) 

ἡμῶν : Of myself and Timothy. 

2. καὶ ᾿Απφίᾳ τῇ ἀδελφῇ : ‘and to Apphia our sister.’ 


DKL, Syr.*h, Syr.?, add αγαπητῃ. 


᾿Απφία is a Phrygian name. Not the same as ᾿Αππίου (Acts 
xxviii, 15). She is commonly supposed to have been Philemon’s 
wife, which is the more probable because the case of the slave was 
a household matter. ‘ Uxori ad quam nonnihil pertinebat nego- 
tium Onesimi” (Beng.). Unless especially related to Philemon, 
her name would naturally have stood after the one which follows. 

ἀδελφῇ : In the Christian sense. 

᾿Αρχίππῳ : Possibly a son of Philemon. He is mentioned Col. 
iv. 17 with a special admonition to fulfil the ministry (διακονίαν) 
which he received in the Lord; from which it may be inferred 
that he was an office-bearer in the church. A reason for address- 
ing him in this letter, even if he was not a member of Philemon’s 
household, might lie in the fact that Onesimus was to be received 
into the church in which Archippus exercised his ministry. 


Different speculations have made him a bishop, a deacon, a presbyter, 
and an evangelist. Opinions differ as to whether his ministry was at 
Colossz or at the neighboring city of Laodicza, since his name occurs in 
the epistle to Colossz, immediately, it is said, after the salutations to the 
Laodiceans. On the other hand, Wieseler (Chronol. des Apost. Zeital.) 
argues that if Archippus had been a Colossian it is not easy to see why Paul 
in vs. 17 makes him to be admonished by others. We do not know the 
motive of the exhortation. It does not immediately follow the salutations 
to the Laodiceans. If Archippus had not resided at Colossz, Paul would 
probably have caused a salutation to be sent to him as well as to Nymphas. 
It is very strange that Paul should have conveyed this admonition to Ar- 
chippus through a strange church, more especially when he had written at 
the same time to Archippus in this letter, addressing him jointly with 
Philemon. That the admonition to Archippus in Col. implies a rebuke 
(Lightf.) is not certain. (Comp. Acts xii. 25.) 


συστρατιώτῃ: ‘ fellow-soldier.’ Only here and Phil. ii. 25 ; but 
comp. 2 Tim. ii. 3. The veteran apostle salutes his younger 
friend as a fellow-campaigner in the gospel warfare. It is unneces- 


2-4] THE CHURCH IN THE HOUSE 177 


sary to search for any particular crisis or contest in church affairs 
in which they were associated. The figure may have been sug- 
gested by Paul's military associations in Rome. 
τῇ Kat’ οἶκον σου ἐκκλησίᾳ: ‘to the church in thy house.’ 
The assembly of believers which met at Philemon’s house. In 
large cities there would be several such assemblies, since no one 
house could accommodate the whole body, and besides, a large 
assembly of the whole church would have awakened the suspicion 
of the Roman authorities. (Comp. Acts xii. 12; Rom. xvi. 5; 
1 Cor. xvi. 19; Col. iv. 15, and see note at the end of the chap- 
ter.) ’ExxAnoia was originally a secular word: ‘ an assembly of 
citizens called out.’ So Acts xix. 39; LXX; 1 Kings viii. 65. Used 
of the congregation of Israel (Acts vii. 38). The Jewish assembly 
is more commonly styled συναγωγή, as Acts ΧΙ]. 43. ᾿Εκκλησία 
denotes the Christian community in the midst of Israel (Acts v. 
Il, Vill. 1, ΧΙ]. I, Xiv. 23, 27). vvaywyy, however, is used of a 
Christian assembly (Jas. ii. 2). Both in the Old and New Testa- 
ment ἐκκλησία implies a community based upon a special religious 
idea, and established in a special way. ‘The word is also used in 
N.T. of a single church or assembly, or of a church confined to a 
particular place, as the church in the house of Prisca and Aquila 
(Rom. xvi. 5), or of Philemon as here; the church at Corinth, 
Jerusalem, etc. In these assemblies in private houses messages 
and letters from the apostles were announced or read. It is per- 
haps to the address of this letter to a congregational circle, as well 
as to an individual correspondent, that we are indebted for its 
preservation. Paul must have written many such private letters. 
The character of the address emphasises the importance of the 
subject of the letter as one affecting both the household circle and 
the church. 
3. χάρις ὑμῖν, etc.: See on Phil. i. 2. 


4-7. Because I hear of the love and faith which you have 
towards the Lord Jesus and to all the saints, 7 thank God when- 
ever I make mention of you in my prayers; praying that in your 
full knowledge of every spiritual blessing which we as Christians 
possess, your faith may prove itself for the glory of Christ in the 
communication of its fruits to others. For on hearing from you, I 
had much joy and comfort on accoynt of your love, because of the 
refreshment which the heurts of the saints have received from you, 
my brother. 


4. εὐχαριστῶ, etc. : ‘I thank my God always when 1 make men- 
tion of you in my prayers.’ (See on Phil. i. 3.) Thus πάντοτε is 
connected with evyap. (Comp. Rom. i. 8-10; 1 Cor.i.4; Col. i. 

N 


178 PHILEMON [4, 5 


3, 4.) The construction probably accords with Col. i. 3, 4, since 
there is a close correspondence of the phraseology, and the two 
letters were written at the same time. Ποιούμενος defines πάντοτε. 
(See on Phil. i. 4.) 


Ellic. differs from most of the modern commentators by connecting 
πάντοτε with ποιούμενος. 


All that the apostle had heard of Philemon caused him to add 
thanksgiving to his prayers. “‘ Notandum quod pro quo gratias 
agit, pro eodem simul precatur. Nunquam enim tanta est vel per- 
fectissimis gratulandi materia, quamdiu in hoc mundo vivunt, 
quin precibus indigeant, ut det illis Deus non tantum perseverare 
usque ad finem, sed in dies proficere. Haec enim laus quam 
mox Philemoni tribuit, breviter complectitur totam Christiani 
hominis perfectionem ” (Calv.). 

ἐπὶ τῶν προσευχῶν μου : ‘when engaged in offering my prayers.’ 
"Evi blends the temporal with the local force. For προσευχὴ, 
prayer in general, see on Phil. iv. 6. Any special petition would 
be δέησις, which is implied in μνείαν. 

5. ἀκούων : ‘because 1 hear,’ through Epaphras (Col. i. 7, 8, 
iv. 12), or possibly from Onesimus himself. 


᾿Ακούων indicates the cause of εὐχαριστῶ; not the motive of the inter- 
cession, as De W., which would leave evy. without a cause assigned for it; 
while the ‘mention’ of Philemon did not require that a motive should be 
assigned. 


σου τὴν ἀγάπην Kal THY πίστιν ἣν ἔχεις πρὸς τὸν κύριον Ἰησοῦν Kat 
εἰς πάντας τοὺς ἁγίους : ‘thy love and faith which thou hast towards 
the Lord Jesus and to all the saints.’ 


εἰς τ. κυρ. εἰς παντ. ACD*, 17, 137, WH. 
προς τ. κυρ. αὶ DFGKLP, Syr.?, Tisch., R.T., Weiss. 


Love and faith are both exercised towards the Lord Jesus, and 
by a hasty and compressed construction, due to the momentum 
of the previous part of the clause, the saints also are made the 
objects of both love and faith, instead of his writing, ‘the love 
and the faith which thou hast towards the Lord Jesus, and the 
love which thou hast to all the saints.’ (Comp. Col. i. 4.) Faith 
works by love, and love exercised towards the saints is a work of 
faith. In the next clause he speaks of a‘ communication’ of faith 
to others. Lumby very aptly says: ‘“‘The love was displayed 
towards the Christian congregation, the faith towards the Lord 
Jesus Christ ; but they are so knit together where they truly exist 
that St. Paul speaks of them both as exhibited alike towards Christ 
and towards his people.” 


A parallel is furnished by Eph. i. 15, if ἀγάπην is omitted from the text 
with AB, WH., R.T. Tisch. retains. See WH.,ad loc., G&. Test., “ Notes 


5,6] LOVE AND FAITH TO CHRIST AND THE SAINTS 179 


on Select Readings.” (Comp. Tit. iii. 15.) Mey., Win. (1. 2), Beet, render 
πίστιν ‘fidelity’ or ‘ faithfulness,’ a sense which is found in N.T. though 
rarely (see Rom. iii. 3; 1 Tim. v. 12; Tit. ii. 10), and which is habitual in 
LXX. (See Lightf. Comm. on Gal. p. 152, and Hatch, Zssays in Bib. G&. 
p- 83 ff.). But (1) πίστις with ἀγάπη never occurs in this sense in N.T. 
(See 1 Cor. xiii. 13; Gal. v. 6; 1 Thess. 1. 3, ν. ὃ; 1 Tim. 1. 14, vi. 11; 
2 Tim. ii. 22.) This is not affected by the fact that ἀγάπην here precedes 
πίστιν. (See Eph. vi. 23.) Gal. v. 22 and 1 Tim. iv. 12 are not in point. 
In those passages the words occur in enumerations; and in Gal. y. 22 
ἀγάπη is entirely detached from πίστις. (2) "ἔχειν πίστιν in N.T. never 
means ‘to have fidelity.’ The phrase occurs eleven times, and always 
means ‘to have faith.” A very common explanation is by the rhetorical 
chiasmus or cross-reference, by which ἀγάπην is referred to τοὺς αἰ γίους, 
and πίστιν to Kup.’Inc. But the examples of chtasmus commonly cited, 
even from the class., illustrate mainly the mere arrangement of the words, 
as where the adjective and the noun are in inverse order in two successive 
clauses. (See Jelf, Gram. 904, 3; Farrar, on the rhetoric of St. Paul, Zi/e 
and Work, i. 626.) Besides, the ἣν ἔχεις connects πίστιν with the entire 
clause τρὸς τ. kup....aylous. The position of cov indicates that it belongs 
to both ἀγάπ. and ric. Comp. the different arrangement in Col. i. 4. 


πρὸς Tov κύριον : Πρὸς nowhere else with πίστις as directed at 
Christ. Of faith ‘towards’ God, 1 Thess. i. 8. Comp. πεποίθη- 
σιν πρὸς τὸν θεὸν (2 Cor. iii. 4). ᾿Αγάπη commonly with εἰς in 
Paul.» (See Rom, v.82 Cor. 11. 83, Col. i.'4 5 Thess. ii. 12; 
2 Thess. i. 3; but comp. 2.Cor. viii..7; 1 Cor. xvi. 24.) The 
use of different prepositions is not to be accounted for on the 
ground of Paul’s fondness for varying the prepositions without 
designing to express a different relation (Mey.). Paul does, 
indeed, often use different prepositions in one clause and with 
reference to one subject in order to define the conception more 
accurately (Rom. iii. 30, xi. 36; Gal. i. 1, ii. 16; Col. 1. 14) ; but 
it is too much to say that no different relation is intended. 


See Holtzn. Pastoralbr. p. 101; Winer, xlvii.; Deissmann, Die neutest. 
Formel ‘in Christo Jesu, pp. 5, 6. 


Bearing in mind that τὴν ἀγάπ. and τὴν πίστ. are so closely 
related in this passage (see above, and Oltr. ad loc.), πρὸς may be 
taken in the sense indicated in the notes on Phil. ii. 30, iv. 6, as 
expressing, not the mere direction of faith and love towards Christ 
(Lightf., Ellic., Alf.), but the relation of loving and believing 
intercourse with him; while εἰς indicates the direct practical 
bearing of faith and love on the Christian brethren. 


πρὸς in class, occurs frequently of all sorts of personal intercourse. (See 
Hom. Od. xiv. 331, xix. 288; Thucyd. ii. 59, iv. 15, vii. 82; Hdt. i. 61.) It 
occurs with φιλία, εὔνοια, ἀπιστία, and with πίστις in the sense of ‘a pledge’ 
(Thucyd. iv. 51; Xen. Cyr. iii. 1, 39). 


6. ὅπως ἡ. κοινωνία τῆς πίστεώς σου ἐνεργὴς γένηται : ‘that the 
communication of thy faith may become (or prove itself) effect- 
ual.’ The thought grows directly out of εἰς πάντ. τ. ἅγ., and ὅπως 


180 PHILEMON [6 


expresses the purpose of the intercession, μνεί. ποιούμ. etc., in vs. 4. 
(Comp. Mt. ii. 23, vi. 2, 16; Acts ix. 17; 1 Cor. i. 29; 2 Thess. 
i. 12.) He prays that the love and faith which so greatly aid and 
comfort all the saints may likewise communicate their blessing to 
Onesimus, though he does not mention his name. Notice the 
general similarity of structure between this passage and Eph. 
i. 16,173; Phil. i. 3 ff.; Col. i. 3 ff._—a prayer after the thanks- 
giving, followed by a final particle introducing a clause. Alf. and 
Oltr. take ὅπως with εὐχαριστῶ. Κοιν. τ. rior. signifies ‘the com- 
munication of thy faith’ to others, Onesimus among them: your 
faith imparting its virtue through your deeds of love. Κοινωνία is 
used as in Rom. xv. 26; 2 Cor. viii. 4, ix. 13; Heb. xiii. 16. 


Mey. connects ὅπως with ἣν ἔχεις, and explains κοινωνία as the fellowship 
entered into by the saints with Philemon’s Christian fidelity. Thus, ‘the 
faith which thou hast in order that the fellowship of the saints with it may 
not be a mere idle sympathy, but may express itself in action.’ Oltr., the 
communion established by faith between Paul and Philemon. Beng., ‘the 
faith which thou hast and exercisest in common with us,’ Lightf., appar- 
ently taking πίστεως as genit. of possession or source, ‘your charitable 
deeds which spring from your faith.’ 


"Evepyys : ‘effectual,’ only twice by Paul. (See 1 Cor. xvi. 9, 
and comp. Heb. iv. 12.) Effectual by reason of the fruit which 
follows. ‘The Vulg. ‘evidens’ is probably from a reading ἐναργής. 

ἐν ἐπιγνώσει : ‘in the full knowledge.’ For ἐπιγ., see on Phil. i. 
9. The subject of the ἐπιγ. is Philemon. ‘The apostle prays that, 
working in the sphere of full knowledge, the communication of 
Philemon’s faith may prove itself effective. In other words, the 
knowledge of every good thing — gospel truth, the principles of 
Christian fraternity and ministry, the ends of Christian striving, 
the supplies furnished by the divine Spirit—is the element in 
which Philemon’s faith will develop to the greatest advantage of 
others, including Onesimus. The larger his knowledge of such 
good things, the more will he be moved to deal kindly and Christ- 
ianly. He will recognise through this knowledge the rightness of 
Paul’s request, and will not allow his resentment towards Onesi- 
mus to prevent his recognising the good which the knowledge of 
Christ has developed in him. 


Mey,., Ellic., Beet, Calv., refer ἐπίγνωσις to the knowledge possessed by 
others. Thus, Mey., “That whoever enters into participation of the same 
(fellowship) may make this partaking, through knowledge of every Christ- 
ian blessing, effective for Christ.’ This is determined by his explanation of 
κοιν. πίστ. See above. 


The prayer for ἐπίγνωσις is characteristic of this group of epistles. 
(See Eph. i. 17; Phil. i. 9; Col. i. 9, 10, ii. 2, and comp. Rom. 
xli. 2; Eph. iv. 13; Tit. i.1.) For this use of ἐν, marking the 
sphere or element in which something takes place, see 2 Cor. i. 
6; Col. 1. 29. 


6, 7] THE BRETHREN’S HEART REFRESHED 181 


παντὸς ἀγαθοῦ τοῦ ἐν ὑμῖν : ‘of every good thing that is in you,’ 
as Christians. Every spiritual gift which you possess. (Comp. 
Eph.i:.3, 17.) 


του after αγαθου, αὶ DF8* GKLP; Tisch., WH.[], Weiss, R.T.; AC, 17, 
om. του. 

υμιν, καὶ FGP, 17, 31, 37, 47, 80, 137, Vulg., Cop., Syr.sch et P, Tisch., Weiss, 
RYE, 

For υμιν ACDKL, WH., read ημιν. 


εἰς Χριστόν : ‘unto Christ.’ Connect with évepy. yév. Unto 
Christ’s glory —the advancement of his cause. Compare εἰς τὸ 
εὐαγγέλιον (Phil. i. 5). “That ultimate reference to Christ which 
is the life of all true Christian work, and alone renders communi- 
cation energetic” (Bp. of Derry). ‘ Bonum nobis exhibitum 
redundare debet in Christum” (Beng.). Not = ἐν Χριστῴ. 


Ιησουν added by s* DFGKLP, Vulg., Syr.P, Arm. 
Text, WH., Tisch., R.T., Weiss. 


7. χαρὰν yap πολλὴν ἔσχον : ‘for I had much joy.’ 


A few secondary uncials and some Fath. read χαριν. 
DCKL, Syr.**, exouev for exxov. 


Tap gives the reason for the thanksgiving in vs. 4, 5, and this 
verse takes up the two points of the thanksgiving, — the love and 
the ministry to the brethren. 


Ellic., De W., v. Sod., Alf., connect with the prayer just preceding. Beet 
with both the thanksgiving and the prayer. 


*Eoyxov: ‘I had,’ when I received the report. Comp. ἀκούων 
vs. 5). 
ὅτι : ‘because.’ Explaining more particularly the ἐπὶ τ. ay. σου. 
τὰ σπλάγχνα : ‘the hearts.’ (See on Phil. i. 8.) 
τῶν ἁγίων : See on Phil. i. 1. 
ἀναπέπαυται : ‘have been refreshed.’ ᾿Αναπαύειν, originally ‘to 
cause to cease’ as painor sorrow. Hence ‘to relieve’ or ‘ refresh.’ 
(See Mt. xi. 28, xxvi. 45 ; Mk. vi. 31; 1 Cor. xvi. 18; 2 Cor. vil. 
13.) In Attic prose it is almost a technical expression for the 
resting of soldiers. Its dominant idea is refreshment in contrast 
with weariness from toil. (See Schmidt, Synon. 25, 2.) Lightf. 
says it expresses a ¢emforary relief, as the simple παυέσθαι expresses 
a final cessation. This needs qualifying. The compound does 
express a temporary relief. ᾿Ανάπαυσις frequently in LXX of the 
rest of the Sabbath. So Mk. vi. 31, of the temporary retirement 
of the disciples. But, on the other hand, the refreshment prom- 
ised by Christ to the weary (Mt. xi. 28, 29) is not a mere tem- 
porary relief, and the word is used of the rest of the blessed dead, 
Apoc. xiv. 13. 


182 -  PHILEMON [7,8 


Often in Ign. in the phrase ἀναπαύειν με (αὐτοὺς) κατὰ πάντα (EPA. ii.; 
Smyr. ix. X., Xi; Zrall. xii.; Mag. xv.; Rom. x.). 


ἀδελφέ: Not ‘brother indeed,’ but a simple expression of affec- 
tion. (Comp. Gal. vi. 18.) 


8-20. Wherefore, although my relations to you would warrant 
me in enjoining on you that which is fitting, yet, for love's sake, I 
prefer to ask it of you as a favor; being such as I am, Paul, an 
old man, and a prisoner for the gospel’s sake. I entreat you, 
therefore, on behalf of my son Onesimus, who has been converted 
through my instrumentality during my imprisonment. Once indeed 
he was not what his name implies, but was useless to you. Now, 
however, he is profitable both to you and to myself. I send him back 
to you, dear though he is to me. I had indeed a mind to keep him 
with me in order that he might minister to me in my imprisonment 
as you yourself would gladly have done; but I was unwilling to do 
anything without your concurrence, for I desired that your service 
to me should be voluntary and not of necessity. And then it occurred 
to me that God had allowed him to be thus separated from you for 
@ time, in order that he might come back to you a better servant 
and a Christian brother besides. Such a brother he is tome; how 
much more to you his rightful master. 7], ask you then, in view of 
our mutual fellowship, to receive him as you would me; and tf he 
has wronged you in any way, or is in your debi, put that to my 
account. This is my promise to repay tt, signed with my own hand ; 
though I might intimate that itis you who are my debtor for your 
very self; since it was through me that you became a Christian. 
Receive Onesimus then, and thus render me a personal favor, 
affording me joy and refreshment in Christ. 


8. διό: ‘wherefore’: because I am thus comforted by you. 
Connect with παρακαλῶ, vs. 9, and not with the participial clause. 

πολλὴν ἐν Χριστῷ παρρησίαν ἔχων : ‘though I have much bold- 
ness in Christ.’ Boldness growing out of their Christian relations. 
Their personal intimacy, St. Paul’s apostolic office, and Philemon’s 
obligation to him for his conversion (vs. 19), would warrant the 
apostle, if so disposed, in laying his commands upon Philemon in 
the matter of receiving Onesimus. 


v. Soden thinks that no allusion to apostolic authority is intended, 
because the apostolic title is omitted in the introduction. But this does 
not necessarily follow. Even though the title is omitted, there is no reason 
why Paul should not allude to his apostolic authority. 


8, 9] ENTREATY FOR LOVE’S SAKE 183 


For παρρησίαν, see on Phil. i. 20. Ἔπιτάσσειν, ‘to enjoin’ or 
‘command,’ is used rather of commanding which attaches to a 
definite office and relates to permanent obligations under the 
office, than of special injunctions for particular occasions (ém- 
τέλλειν. See Schmidt, Syvon. 8, 10). 

τὸ ἀνῆκον : ‘that which is fitting.’ (See Eph. v. 4; Col. iii. 18; 
LXX ; 1 Macc. x. 40, xi. 35 ; 2 Macc. xiv. 8.) The primary mean- 
ing of the verb is ‘ to have come up to’ or ‘arrived at,’ as to have 
attained a standard of measurement or weight, or to have reached 
a height. Hence, to have come to one so as to have become his ; 
to pertain to or belong to him. Comp. Hdt. vi. 109: καὶ κῶς és 
σέ TL τούτων ἀνήκει τῶν πραγμάτων TO κῦρος ἔχειν : ‘and how it 
comes to thee to have, in some sort, authority over these things.’ 

9. διὰ τὴν ἀγάπην : ‘for love’s sake.’ Love in its widest sense, 
as the characteristic virtue of all Christians. Not to be limited to 
the affection between Paul and Philemon. 

μᾶλλον : ‘rather’ than command thee. The object of compari- 
son is omitted. (See on Phil. i. 12.) Paul desires to obtain for 
love’s sake and by asking, what he might have obtained by author- 
ity. Comp. the opening and close of Pliny’s letter to a friend on 
a similar occasion: “ Vereor ne videar non rogare sed cogere”’ 
(22. ix.). 

τοιοῦτος ὦν, ὡς Παῦλος πρεσβύτης νυνὶ δὲ καὶ δέσμιος Χριστοῦ 
Ἰησοῦ παρακαλῶ : ‘being such (as I am), as Paul the aged and 
now also a prisoner of Jesus Christ, I beseech thee.’ Paul would 
say: I might justly enjoin thee, but, for love’s sake, I rather be- 
seech thee. This general statement of his attitude stands by 
itself, and forms a complete sentence. He then goes on to 
define. I do not speak as an apostle, but simply in my personal 
capacity. Being such as I am,— Paul, an old man, a prisoner 
of Christ, —I beseech thee, etc. Thus a period is placed after 
παρακαλῶ, VS. 9. Totodros is Paul’s general description of himself, 
which is farther defined with the three particulars, — Paul, aged, 
a prisoner. Accordingly τοιοῦτος points forward to these details. 


There is much difference among interpreters as to the connection. The 
points in question are: 

(1) Whether τοιοῦτος ὧν is to be connected with ὡς Παῦλος or separated 
from it. 

(2) Whether τοιοῦτος ὧν begins a new sentence or is connected with 
the preceding παρακαλῶ, z.e. whether a period or a comma shall be placed 
after παρακ. (vs. 9). : 

(3) Whether the thought in τοι. ὧν refers back to Paul’s attitude as a 
suppliant (διὰ τ. dy. wad. wapax.), or to his claim as an apostle (παρρησ. 
ἔχ. ércr.), or points forward to his attitudé as merely Paul, an old man and 
8. prisoner. 

As to (1), Lightf., Dw., Beet, R.V., make τοιοῦ. and ὡς correlative: 
‘such an one as Paul.’ But τοιοῦτος can be defined only by a following 
adjective, or by οἷος, ὃς, ὅσος, or ware with the infin. Never by ὡς. Τοιοῦ- 
τος followed by ὡς occurs nowhere in N.T., and Lightf. has not established 


184 PHILEMON [9, 10 


the correlation by the single citation from Plat. (Symp. 181 E) and another 
from Alexis. Besides it is doubtful whether the reference to Sym. is in 
point; for τὸ τοιοῦτον may be taken absolutely there, and need not be cor- 
related with ὥσπερ. (See Jelf, 655.) This absolute use of τοιοῦτος is well 
established. (See Hom. 7... vii. 42; Soph. 47. 1298; Philoct. 1049; Plat. 
Repub. 429 B.) Moreover, the rule which makes τοιοῦτος refer to what 
precedes, while τοιόςδε refers to what follows, is often reversed (Jelf, 655). 
Professor Sophocles says: ‘ Unless the Greek be irregular, τοιοῦτος and ὡς 
cannot be reciprocal terms.” 

(2) Period after παρακαλῶ (vs. 9), by Ellic., Mey., Alf., De W., v. Sod., 
Oltr. Comma after παρακαλῶ, and τοι. ὧν the continuation of the preced- 
ing clause (Lightf., Dw.). ‘I beseech thee, being such an one as Paul,’ 
etc. In that case the παρακ. of vs. 10 is resumptive. 

(3) τοιοῦτος ὧν is referred to Paul’s attitude as a suppliant by Mey.,. 
v. Sod., Ellic., Alf. 


Παῦλος, πρεσβύτης, δέσμιος : Apparently three details of τοιοῦ. 
are intended. Some, however, take Παῦλ. and πρεσβ. as one con- 
ception (Luth., Calv., De W., Ellic., Oltr.). 

πρεσβύτης : ‘an aged man.’ His precise age cannot be de- 
termined. He is called veavias at the time of the martyrdom of 
Stephen (Acts vii. 58) ; and if, at the time of writing this letter 
he were sixty or even fifty years old, there would be no impro- 
priety in his calling himself πρεσβύτης. The term is wholly rela- 
tive. He might have aged prematurely under his numerous 
hardships. According to Hippocrates, a man was called πρεσβύ- 
τῆς from forty-nine to fifty-six ; after that, γέρων. 


Lightf. conjectures that the reading is πρεσβευτής, ‘an ambassador,’ in 
accordance with Eph. vi. 20; and that that should be the meaning even if 
πρεσβύτης is retained. So WH. The two forms are certainly interchanged 
in LXX. (See 2 Chron. xxxil. 31; 1 Macc. xiii. 21, xiv. 21, 22; 2 Macc. 
xi. 34.) Both in Eph. vi. 20, and 2 Cor. v. 20, πρεσβεύειν is used in con- 
nection with public relations. ‘ Ambassador” does not seem quite appro- 
priate to a private letter, and does not suit Paul’s attitude of entreaty. 
The suggestion of public relations is rather in δέσμιος ’I. X. 


νυνὶ δὲ καὶ : ‘now,’ at the time of my writing this ; καὶ : ‘ besides,’ 
in addition to my age. 

δέσμιος Ἰησοῦ Χριστοῦ : Comp. vs. 1; Eph. iii. 1; iv. 1; 2 Tim. 
1, 8. Not ‘a prisoner belonging to Christ,’ nor ‘for Christ’s 
sake,’ διὰ Χριστὸν δεδεμένος (Chr.), but one whom Christ has 
brought into captivity. (See Win. xxx. 2.) 


Lightf., in accordance with his explanation of πρεσβύτης, thinks that the 
genit. "I. X. belongs to both πρεσβ. and δέσμ. 


10. τοῦ ἐμοῦ τέκνου : An affectionate designation of Onesimus. 
The slight hesitation in mentioning the name of the slave, and the 
delay in coming to the point of the letter, are noticeable. Τέκνον 
in a similar sense, a spiritual child, 1 Cor. iv. 14, 17; Gal. iv. 19 
(rexvia) ; « Tim. i. 2, 18; 2 Tim. ii. 1. 


10, 11] THE PROFITABLE SLAVE 185 


ov ἐγέννησα : Of whose conversion I was the instrument. The 
appeal in the thought of his won child is heightened by ἐμοῦ, and 
by the fact that he is the spiritual child of his captivity. For this 
figurative use of γεννᾷν, comp. 1 Cor. iv. 15. Thayer, Zex., cites 
Sanhedr. fol. 19, 2, of one who brings others to his own way of 
life. “If one teaches the son of his neighbor the law, the Script- 
ure reckons this the same as though he had begotten him.” 

ἐν Tots δεσμοῖς : ‘in my bonds.’ 


pou added by x® CDKLP, Syr.¥, Cop., Arm., Atth. 


᾿Ονήσιμον : ‘profitable’ (ὀνίνημι). A common name among 
slaves, like many others expressing utility, as Chresimus, Chrestus, 
Onesiphorus, Symphorus, Carpus. (See Lightf.’s Jntrod. to Philem. 
sec. 4.) Accordingly, Weizsacker’s statement that the allegorical 
character of the epistle is apparent from this name has no rele- 
vancy whatever (Afost. Zeital. p. 545). ὈὈνήσιμον is accus. by 
attraction after ἐγένν. 

11. ἄχρηστον : ‘useless,’ ‘unserviceable.’ Titmann (Syz.) says 
that to the idea of uselessness it adds that of harmfulness, while 
ἀχρεῖος Means simply that of which there is no need. (See 
Schmidt, Syzon. 166, 6.) It is not, however, probable that the 
idea of harmfulness is implied in connection with a possible 
robbery of his master by Onesimus. (See on vs. 18.) 


“Axpnoros only here in N.T., LXX, Hos. viii. 8; Sap. ii. 11, iii. 11; 
Sir. xvi. I, xxvil. 19; 2 Macc. vii. 5. 


νυνὶ de: ‘but now,’ that he has become a Christian disciple. 
Νυνὶ δε, mostly and very often in Paul. (See Rom. vi. 22, vii. 6, 
Bye Av. 95,25 5.1 Gor: ν, τὰν etc.) 

σοὶ καὶ ἐμοὶ εὔχρηστον : ‘profitable to thee and to me.’ For- 
merly useless to hee, when he was thy worthless, runaway slave, 
and before 7 had known him. Now profitable to us both. The 
nice use of the personal pronouns and the assumption of a joint 
interest in Onesimus are very charming. (Comp. Rom. xvi. 13; 
1 Cor. xvi. 18 ; Phil. ii. 27.) 


n* FerG, 17, 31, 47, 67, Syr.8h, Aith., add καὶ before σοι. So Tisch., 
Weiss. 
kat om. by ACDKLP, Syr.P, Arm., WH., R.T. 


εὔχρηστον occurs only here, 2 Tim. ii. 21, iv. 11. Profitable to 
Philemon in the new and higher character of his service as a 
Christian, as described (Eph. vi. 5 ff.; Col. iii. 22 ff.). Profitable 
to Paul as an evidence of his successful apostolic labor (καρπὸς 
ἔργου, Phil. i. 22), and therefore a cause of joy and encourage- 
ment. There may also be a reference to Onesimus’ kindly minis- 
tries to himself in his imprisonment (vs. 13). 


186 Ἢ PHILEMON [12, 13 


12. ov ἀνέπεμψα σοι αὐτόν, τοῦτ᾽ ἐστιν τὰ ἐμὰ σπλάγχνα : ‘whom 
I send back to thee in his own person, that is my very heart.’ 
Αὐτόν thus emphasises ov, and prepares the way for ra ἐμὰ om. 


Lightf. punctuates ἀνέπ. σοι. Αὐτόν, τουτέστιν τὰ ἐμὰ σπλ., ὃν ἐγὼ, 
etc., thus beginning a new sentence with αὐτόν as depending on the idea of 
προσλαβοῦ (vs. 17). Such a “dislocation” is hardly conceivable, even in 
Paul’s writing. 


᾿Ανέπεμψα is the epistolary aorist, by which the writer puts him- 
self at the point of time when the correspondent is reading his 
letter. (See Acts xxiii. 30; Phil. ii. 28; Win. xl. 2; and note on 
ἔγραψα, VS. 19.) For τὰ ἐμὰ σπλάγχνα, see on Phil. i. 8, ii. i. 
Pesh. renders ‘my son.’ Wetst. cites Artemidorus, ᾿Ονειροκριτικά 
(i. 46) οἱ παίδες σπλάγχνα λέγονται ; also Jd. 35, v. 57, and Philo, 
De Joseph. 5 (ii. 45). In Latin poetry and post-Augustine prose 
viscera is used in the same sense. (See Ov. Mez. vi. 651, viii. 
478, x. 465 ; Q. Curt. iv. 14, 22.) So Chr. and Thdrt. But this 
does not agree with Paul’s usage elsewhere. (See 2 Cor. vi. 12, 
vii. 15 ; Phil. i. 8, 11. 1; Col. iii. 12.) Besides, it would be tauto- 
logical after ov ἐγέννησα. 

13. ov ἐγὼ ἐβουλόμην πρὸς ἐμαυτὸν κατέχειν: ‘whom I was 
minded to keep with myself.’ The expression of an actual 
thought and desire entertained by Paul; ἐβουλόμην indicating 
deliberation with an accompanying inclination. I was inclined to 
keep him, and was turning over the matter in my mind. See on 
τὸ θέλειν, Phil. ii. 13. 

Lightf. prefers the conditional sense of the imperfect, ‘I could have 
wished,’ referring it to a suppressed conditional clause, ‘if circumstances 
had favored.’ This is a well-known use of the imperf. (See Acts xxv. 22; 
Rom. ix. 3; Gal. iv. 20; and Lightf. On Revis. of N.7., under “ Faults of 
Grammar.”) But no such conditional clause is implied; for Paul does not 
intimate that the fulfilment of his wish was impossible, and that therefore 
he did not cherish it, but only that, though he entertained the wish, he 


refrained from acting upon it until he should have learned Philemon’s 
pleasure in the matter (vs. 14). 


πρὸς ἐμαυτὸν : ‘with myself.’ See on zpos, vs. 5 ; and Phil. iv. 6. 

κατέχειν : For the verb, see Lk. iv. 42, viii. 15 ; Rom. i. 18; 
1 Thess. v. 21. 

iva ὑπὲρ σοῦ μοι διακονῇ : ‘that he might serve me on thy behalf.’ 
A delicate justification of ἐβουλόμην, and full of tact. The ὑπὲρ 
gov is exquisite, assuming that his friend would delight in render- 
ing him, through the slave, the service which he could not per- 
sonally perform. Ὑπὲρ is not for ἀντὶ, ‘instead of,’ or ‘in thy 
place’ (Thdrt., Gic., Calv., De W., Bleek, van Oos.), but has its 
usual N.T. sense, ‘ on behalf of,’ or ‘ for thy sake.’ The expression 
thus gains in delicacy. Onesimus is more than a mere substitute 
for Philemon. In these words the relation of master and slave 
disappears for the moment. Both are servants for Christ’s sake 


eet 


13, 14] A FAVOR FREELY GRANTED 187 


in the discharge of a ministry congenial to both. The suggestion 
is already conveyed by εὔχρηστον that Onesimus, in becoming a 
Christian disciple, has passed into a new and higher sphere of 
service, in which he and his master are on common ground. At 
the same time, there is a hint that Onesimus, even as a slave, is 
rendering better service to the master whom he has wronged, in 
thus serving Philemon’s friend and teacher ; serving no longer as 
a menial, but in hearty sympathy with his master. 

ἐν τοῖς δεσμοῖς Tov εὐαγγελίου : ‘in the bonds of the gospel’ ; 
of which the gospel is the cause ; in my imprisonment which has 
resulted from the preaching of the gospel. Thus a hint is added 
of his need of such service as that of Onesimus, which has the 
force of an appeal, as in vs. 9, 10. (Comp. Eph. iv. 1, vi. 20, 
and Ign. Zrad/. xii.: παρακαλεῖ ὑμᾶς τὰ δεσμά pov, ἃ ἕνεκεν ᾿ἸΙησοῦ 
Χριστοῦ περιφέρω: “my bonds exhort you which I wear for the 
sake of Jesus Christ.” See also Eph. xi: Magn. i.). 

14. χωρὶς δὲ τῆς σῆς γνώμης : ‘ but without thy judgment.’ ‘But,’ 
though I had the inclination. Χωρὶς, ‘ apart from,’ in N.T. almost 
entirely supplements ἄνευ, ‘ without,’ which occurs only three times, 
and not in Paul. (See Ellic. on Eph. ii. 12.) Τνώμης, not fre- 
quent in N.T. Primarily ‘a means of knowing’ (γινώσκειν): the 
organ by which one knows. Hence mind and its operations, 
thought, judgment, opinion. (See Acts xx. 3; 1 Cor. i. ro, 
vii. 25 ; 2 Cor. viii. 10; Apoc. xvii. 13, 17.) ‘Mind’ or ‘judg- 
ment’ is the meaning throughout the N.T. Paul was unwilling 
to take any steps without having Philemon’s judgment as to what 
was right in the case. 

ἠθέλησα : “1 determined.’ Comp. the aor. with the imperf: 
ἐβουλόμην. I was deliberating and came to the decision. 

iva μὴ ὡς κατὰ ἀνάγκην τὸ ἀγαθόν σου ἢ : ‘in order that thy benefit 
might not be as of necessity’; the benefit, namely, which Phile- 
mon would confer by allowing Onesimus to remain with Paul. 
᾿Αγαθόν not in the sense of ‘ morally good,’ but ‘ kindly,’ ‘ benefi- 
cent.’ (Comp. Rom. v.°7, vii. 12; 1 Thess. iii. 6; Tit. ii. 5; 
1 Pet. ii. 18, and see Lightf. Votes on Eps. of St. P. from 
Unpublished Commentaries, pp. 45, 286, 303.) 


The point made by Mey,., Ellic., Beet, Alf., that τὸ ἀγαθόν is general — 
the category under which falls the special ἀγαθόν of Onesimus’ remaining 
—seems to be an over-refinement. The special reference to πρὸς ἐμαυτὸν 
κατέχειν (vs. 13) is not affected by the fact that Paul did not intend to keep 
Onesimus (Mey.). His intention was in abeyance for atime. He actually 
wished to keep him, and debated with himself whether he should not keep 
him, but he did not resolve to keep him. In that case Philemon would 
have served Paul, and Paul would have received a benefit from him without 
consulting him, which was what he did not wish. " 


ὡς κατὰ ἀνάγκην : ‘as of necessity’; ‘compulsion-wise’ (Ellic.). 
Ὥς, seeming as, wearing the appearance of. Introduced because 


+ 


ΟΝ 


188 PHILEMON [14-16 


Paul is satisfied that his retaining Onesimus would have been agree- 
able to Philemon ; but he would not have it appear as if Philemon’s 
permission was constrained. Kar. ἀνάγ., not = ἐξ ἀνάγκης (as Oltr.), 
which marks the origin of the action, but indicating that the action 
is performed according to a certain rule or model. (See Ellic. on 
Tit. iii. 5.) This particular phrase only here in N.T., but see 
κατὰ νόμον, φύσιν, ἀλήθειαν, σάρκα, πνεῦμα, ἐρίθειαν. LXX, only 2 
Mace. xv. 2. 

κατὰ ἑκούσιον : ‘of free will’; ‘according to what is voluntary.’ 
‘Exovowos only here in N.T. (See LXX, Num. xv. 3.) For the 
same antithesis see 1 Pet. v. 2. 

15. Another reason for not detaining Onesimus. Paul might 
thus have crossed the purpose of divine Providence. ‘The con- 
sideration is modestly introduced with τάχα as the suggestion of a 
possibility, and not as assuming acquaintance with God’s designs. 
It might be that God allowed the slave to leave you in order that 
he might become a Christian disciple ; and if I should retain him, 
you would not have him back in your household as a Christian 
brother. Philemon’s attention is thus turned from his individual 
wrongs to the providential economy which has made these wrongs 
work for good. 

Tap explains the additional motive of ἠθέλησα. Τάχα is found 
only here and Rom. v. 7. 

ἐχωρίσθη : ‘he was parted (from thee).’ The word is chosen 
with rare tact. He does not say ‘he ran away,’ which might 
excite Philemon’s anger ; but ‘he was separated,’ and, by the use 
of the passive, he puts Onesimus’ flight into relation with the 
ordering of Providence. See Chrysostom’s comparison with the 
case of Joseph, who says, “God did send me before you”’ 
(Gen. xlv. 5). 

πρὸς wpav: ‘for a season.’ Indefinite. (Comp. 2 Cor. vii. 8; 
Gal. ii. 5 ; 1 Thess. ii. 17.) Whatever the period of separation, it 
was but ‘an hour’ as compared with its lasting consequences. 

iva... ἀπέχῃς : ‘that thou mightest have him.’ The com- 
pound verb denotes the completeness of the possession. (See 
on Phil. iv. 18.) The bond between the master and the slave 
would no longer be that of ownership by purchase which death 
would dissolve, but their common relation to Christ which made 
them brethren, now and evermore. 


Lightf. explains ἀπέχῃς ‘receive back.” If this is correct, it is the only 
instance in N.T., though ἀπὸ has this meaning in composition with διδόναι, 
καθιστάναι, καταλλάσσειν, and λαμβάνειν. (See Mt. xii. 13; Mk. iii. 5; 
Lk. iv. 20, ix. 42, xix. 8.) 


16. οὐκέτι ὡς δοῦλον : ‘no longer as a slave.’ ‘Qs denotes the 
subjective conception of Onesimus’ relation to his master, without 
reference to the external relation; 2.46. Paul does not say that 


16, 17] MORE THAN A SLAVE 189 


Philemon is to receive Onesimus freed, and no longer a slave, 
which would be δοῦλον simply, but that, whether he shall remain 
a slave or not, he will no longer be regarded as a slave, but as a 
brother beloved. ‘The relation between the master and the slave 
is transformed. The slave, even without ceasing to be a slave, is 
on a different and higher footing with his master. Both are in 
Christ. (See 1 Cor. vii. 20-24; Col. iii. 11.) The relation is 
conceived absolutely, without special reference to Philemon’s view 
of it. 

ὑπὲρ δοῦλον : ‘above a slave’; ‘more than a slave.’ For this 
sense of ὑπὲρ, see Mt. x. 24, 37; Acts xxvi. 13 ; Win. xlix. 

ἀδελφὸν ἀγαπητὸν : Explaining ὑπὲρ δοῦλον. 

μαλίστα ἐμοί : ‘especially to me’ whose spiritual child he is. 

πόσῳ δὲ μᾶλλον σοὶ : ‘but how much more to thee.’ Because 
he is your property. ‘There is a hint that the property relation 
involves more than mere ownership and receiving of service. 
Ownership should be a basis for Christian fraternity and its 
mutual ministries. 

καὶ ἐν σαρκὶ καὶ ἐν κυρίῳ : ‘both in the flesh and in the Lord.’ 
Explaining πόσῳ μᾶλλον. In the mere external relation (ἐν σαρκὶ) 
Onesimus will be a better servant; in the spiritual relation (ἐν 
κυρίῳ) he will be on a higher footing, and will have acquired a 
new value as a Christian brother. 


The main point of the letter is at last reached, backed by an 
appeal to Philemon’s fellowship with Paul. Paul has sent Onesi- 
mus back (vs. 11). He prays Philemon to give him a kindly 
reception. 


17. εἰ οὖν pe ἔχεις κοινωνόν : ‘if therefore thou regardest me as a 
partner.’ Οὖν sums up the considerations just urged, and resumes 
the request foreshadowed in vs.11,12. For ἔχεις comp. Luke xiv. 
18; Phil. ii. 29. Κοινωνόν : The noun and its kindred verbs are 
used in N.T. almost exclusively of ethical and spiritual relations. 
Even when applied to pecuniary contributions, they imply Christ- 
ian fellowship as the basis of the liberality. Comp., however, 
Lk. v. 10; Heb. ii. 14. Here a partner in Christian faith, so that 
the refusal of Paul’s request would be inconsistent with such a 
relation. Surely not as Beng. “that what is thine may be mine, 
and mine thine.” 

προσλαβοῦ αὐτὸν ὡς ἐμέ: ‘receive him as myself.’ Take him 
unto thee. Admit him to Christian fellowship. ‘Qs ἐμέ. Comp. 
τὰ ἐμὰ σπλάγχνα (VS. 12). 


He guards against certain possible hindrances to Onesimus’: 
favorable reception. 


190 PHILEMON [18, 19 


18. εἰ δέ τι ἠδίκησεν σε ἢ ὀφείλει : ‘if ne hath in aught wronged 
thee or is in thy debt.’ Another exhibition of the apostle’s tact 
in dealing with a delicate subject. Besides running away, Onesi- 
mus had possibly robbed his master. He had at least deprived 
him of his services by his flight. Paul states the case hypo- 
thetically, and puts the offence as a debt. 

τοῦτο ἐμοὶ ἐλλόγα : ‘place this to my account.’ He will be 
responsible for the amount. . 

"EAAdya, only here and Rom. v. 13. Not in class., though 
occurring in one or two inscriptions. It does not occur in LXX. 


The reading ελλογει has very scanty support. 


19. ἐγὼ Παῦλος ἔγραψα τῇ ἐμῇ χειρί: “1, Paul, write it with my 
own hand.’ Paul’s promissory note. Ἔγραψα is the epistolary 
aorist. (Comp. 1 Pet. v.12; 1 Jn. il. 14, 21,26.) Tijweula 
appear that Paul wrote these and at least the two following words 
with his own hand. How much more he may have written, 
whether the entire letter, or all the verses from 19 to the end, is 
purely a matter of speculation. 


Lightf. says that this incidental mention of his autograph, occurring 
where it does, shows that he wrote the whole letter with his own hand 
instead of employing an amanuensis as usual. So De W. and Alf., and 
Ellic. and Oltr. think it not improbable. (See Lightf. and Ellic. on Gal. 
vi. II.) 


ἐγὼ ἀποτίσω: “1 will repay it.’ Probably without eny serious 
expectation that Philemon would demand payment; but yet not 
as a mere graceful pleasantry (as v. Sod., Mey., Oltr.).  Olltr. 
imagines how Philemon must have laughed at such a promise 
from a man who had not a penny in the world. But why? Paul 
on his anticipated release from prison might have found means to 
pay if payment should be demanded, just as he found means to live 
in prison or to earn the money by his own labor as he had done 
more than once. 

iva μὴ λέγω σοι: ‘not to say to thee.’ (Comp. 2 Cor. ix. 4.) 
A sort of elliptical construction in which the writer delicately 
protests against saying something which he nevertheless does say. 
Similar phrases are οὐχ dre (Phil. iv. 11) ; οὐχ οἷον ὅτι (Rom. 
ix. 6). In many such cases the phrase becomes stereotyped, 
and the connection with a suppressed thought is not consciously 
present to the writer. The thought completely expressed would 
be: ‘I agree to assume the obligation 271: order fo avoid mention- 
ing your great personal debt to me.’ 

ὅτι καὶ σεαυτόν μοι προσοφείλεις : ‘that thou owest me also thine 
own self besides.’ You owe to me your conversion. The καὶ 
‘also,’ and zpos (προσοφ.) ‘in addition to’ are correlated. You 
are my debtor not only to the amount for which I here become 


19-22] + REFRESH MY HEART IQI 


responsible, but a/so for your own self 7m addition to that. Even 
if you remit the debt, you will still owe me yourself. Προσοφείλειν 
only here in N.T. 

20. ναὶ, ἀδελφέ: ‘yea, brother.’ Nai is a particle of confirma- 
tion. See on Phil. iv. 3, and comp. Matt. xv. 27; Rom. iii. 29 ; 
Apoc. xiv. 13. It confirms the request in vs. 17. 

ἐγώ σου ὀναίμην ἐν κυρίῳ : ‘let me have profit from thee in the 
Lord.’ The ἐγώ is emphatic. Receive Aim, and so may J be 
profited. I ask for him as a favor to-myself. This emphasis 
delicately points to Onesimus, and the allusion is strengthened by 
the play on his name in ὀναίμην. ᾿Ονίνασθαι ‘to have profit or 
advantage.’ Only here in N.T. It is common in class. with the 
genitive of that from which profit accrues. See Hom. //. xvi. 31; 
Od. xix. 68; Eurip. Med. 1025, 1348: Aristoph. Zhesm. 469. 
Also Ign. Polyc. i. vi; Mag. ii. xii; Eph. ii. 

ἐν κυρίῳ : Not material advantage, but advantage accruing from 
their both being in Christ, and from the act as a Christian act. 

ἀναπαυσόν : 566 ON VS. 7. 

μου τὰ σπλάγχνα : ‘my heart.’ Not a designation of Onesimus. 
(Comp. vs. 12.) 


21, 22. Being assured of your obedient spirit, I write to you, 
knowing that you will do even more than Lask. While you thus 
receive Onesimus, be ready to receive me also, and prepare a lodg- 
ing for me, since I hope that,in answer to your prayers, I may 
soon be permitted to visit you. 


21. πεποιθὼς τῇ ὑπακοῇ σου : ‘having confidence in thine obedi- 
ence.’ Not recurring to the note of authority in vs. 8, but mean- 
ing his obedience to the claims of Christian duty as they shall 
appeal to his conscience. 

ἔγραψά σοι: “1 write to thee.’ See on vs. 19. 

ὑπὲρ ἃ λέγω : ‘above what I say.’ For ὑπὲρ, see on vs. 16. It 
is not certain that he alludes to the manumission of Onesimus 
(De W., Oltr., Reuss, Godet), though this may possibly be im- 
plied. ‘The expression is general. My confidence in your love 
and obedience assures me that you will more than fulfil my 
request. 

22. ἅμα de: ‘but withal.’ At the same time with your kindly 
reception of Onesimus. For ἅμα see Acts xxiv. 26, xxvii. 40; 
Cal, 19.533. t Tim: 2: 

ἑτοίμαζέ μοι ξενίαν : ‘prepare me a lodging,’ or ‘ entertainment.’ 
Indicating his hope of speedy liberation as expressed in Phil. ii. 
24. According to Phil. ii. 24, Paul proposed to go to Macedonia 
in the event of his liberation; whereas here he expresses a wish 
’ to go immediately to Colosse. (See Weiss, ind. § 24.) But 


192 PHILEMON [22, 23 


between writing the two letters, he might have found reason to 
change his mind; or he might take Philippi on his way from 
Rome to Colossz, since Philippi was on the great high-road 
between Europe and Asia. (See Hort, Zhe Romans and the 
Ephesians, pp. 103, 104.) 

ξενίαν: Only here and Acts xxviii. 23. Suid. and Hesych. 
define ‘an inn, καταγώγιον, katdAvpa.’ Ἐξνισθῶμεν, however, Acts 
xxi. 16, is used of entertainment in a private house. The primary 
meaning of gevéa is ‘ hospitality,’ ‘ friendly entertainment or recep- 
tion.’ ᾿Ἐλθεῖν ἐπὶ ξενίαν is ‘to come seeking entertainment’ (Pind. 
NV. 49); ἐπὶ ξενίαν καλεῖν is ‘to invite as a guest’ (Dem. 81, 20). 
Comp. Clem. Hom. xii. 2, προάξωσιν τὰς ξενίας ἑτοιμάζοντες. The 
phrase here may therefore mean, ‘ prepare to entertain me.’ 

διὰ τῶν προσευχῶν ὑμῶν : Comp. Phil. i. 19. 

χαρίσθησομαι : ‘I shall be granted’ or ‘given.’ As a favor by 
God, and perhaps with a friendly assumption that his coming will 
be regarded by them as a favor. I shall be graciously restored to 
you who desire my safety, and who will welcome my restoration. 
(See Acts iii. 14, xxvii. 24.) 


SALUTATIONS 


23. All the persons saluted are named in the salutations of 
Col. except Jesus Justus. 

*"Exadpas: Paul’s delegate to the Colossians (Col, i. 7). A 
Colossian, and not to be identified with Epaphroditus of Phil. ii. 
25, on which see note. 

Μάρκος : Probably John Mark, the son of Mary (Acts xii. 12, 25, 
xv. 37). Called 6 ἀνεψιὸς Βαρνάβα (Col. iv. 10). The first 
mention of him since the separation twelve years before (Acts xv. 
39) occurs in Col. and Philem. (Comp. 2 Tim. iv. 11 with the 
account of the separation.) He is commended to the church at 
Colosse (Col. iv. 10). In 1 Pet. v. 13 he sends salutation to 
Asia, and appears to be there some years after the date of Col. 
and Philem. (2 Tim. iv. 11). 

’Apicrapxos: A Thessalonian who started with Paul on his 
voyage to Rome (Acts xxvii. 2). On his leaving Paul at Myra, 
see Introd. V. In Col. iv. 10, 11, he is mentioned with Mark and 
Jesus Justus as being of the circumcision. He appears at Ephesus 
as Paul’s companion (Acts xix. 29), and as accompanying the 
apostle on his return from Greece through Macedonia to Troas 
(Acts xx. 4). 

Anpas: Contraction of Δημήτριος. Probably a Thessalonian 
(Col. iv. 14, comp. 2 Tim. iv. 10.) 

Λουκᾶς : The evangelist. His connection with Paul first appears 
Acts xvi. 10, where he accompanies the apostle to Macedonia. 


2] THE CHURCH IN THY HOUSE 193 


He remained at Philippi after Paul’s departure, and was there 
seven years later, when Paul visited the city (Acts xx. 5,6). He 
accompanied the apostle to Jerusalem (Acts xxi. 15), after which 
we lose sight of him until he appears at Cesarea (Acts xxvii. 2), 
whence he accompanies Paul to Rome. 


NoTE ON “THE CHURCH THAT Is IN THY HOUSE” (vs, 2) 


The basilica did not appear until the third-century. The oldest witnesses 
for special church buildings are Clem. Alex. Strom. vii. c. 5, and Hippol. 
Fragm. ed. Lagarde, p. 149. Both witnesses represent the beginning of the 
third century, about 202 A.D., and are older than the commonly cited passages 
in Tert. Adv. Valent. c. 3 (205-8 A.D.). 

The liberty of assembling was due to the fact that in the Roman Empire 
Christians at this time passed as a Jewish sect. The Jews were allowed to 
assemble under the special exemptions granted by Julius Czesar and Augustus, 
which declared their communities legally authorised, and gave them the right 
to establish societies in all places (Joseph. “μέ. xiv. 10, 8). They thus 
availed themselves of the widely spread institution of collegta or sodalitates 
which had prevailed in the empire from a very early period. Numerous clubs 
or confraternities existed, composed either of the members of different trades, 
of the servants of a particular household, or of the worshippers of a particular 
deity. A special object of these clubs was to provide decent burial for their 
members. A fund was raised by contribution, from which burial expenses 
were defrayed, and also the expenses of the annual feasts held on the birthdays 
of the deceased. (See Antiochene Acts of Martyrdom of Ignatius, vii.; Pliny’s 
Letter to Trajan; Tert. Afol. 39.) For the celebration of these feasts special 
buildings were erected called scho/ae. Sometimes a columbarium was pur- 
chased by a club for its own use. 

This right of forming co//egia was at first freely granted to all parties under 
the republic, but began to be restricted before the close of the republican 
period. (See Cicero, Orat. in L. Calp. Pison. c. 4; and Livy’s account of the 
extirpation of the Bacchanalian rites, xxxix. 8.) 

Julius Cesar suppressed all but the most ancient col/egia (Suet. Julius, 42), 
and his decrees were confirmed by Augustus (Suet. Augustus, 32). From the 
operation of these edicts, however, the Jews were exempted. They had only to 
refrain from meeting in a single general association. They were allowed the 
free exercise of their worship, and government by the chiefs of their synagogues. 
It was easy for the Christians to take advantage of the general misconception 
which confounded them with the Jews, and to hold their assemblies. Ata 
later period, when they became more distinct, and their ordinary assemblies 
were forbidden, they availed themselves of those exceptions to the Julian and 
Augustan edicts which allowed the existence of benefit-clubs among the poor 
for funeral purposes, and permitted them to meet once a week. This excep- 
tion became important under Hadrian (A.D. 117-138). 

ο 


194 PHILEMON [2 


See Edwin Hatch, Organization of the Early Christian Churches; E. 
Loening, Gemeindeverfassung; W.M. Ramsay, 7he Church in the Roman 
Empire, etc.; J. S. Northcote and W. R. Brownlow, Roma Sotteranea, 2d 
ed.; R. Lanciani, Ancient Rome in the Light of Recent Excavations, p. 128; 
and Pagan and Christian Rome, p. 117; De Rossi, Roma Sotteranea, i. 


Ρ- 209. 


INDEX OF SUBJECTS 


Achaia, xi. 

Acts, date of, 41. 

᾿Αγιασμός, a state and a process, 123. 

Alexander the Great, x. 

Alford, on date of the Philippian let- 
ter, xxii. 

Antithesis of Adam and Christ, 84-86. 

Apphia, 176. 

Arbela, battle of, x. 

Archippus, speculations concerning, 
177. 

Aristarchus, xxiii. 

Aristotle, on μορφὴ, 79. 


Baur, attack on the Philippian letter, 
xxvif. Oni. 7, xxvii. Rejects Epis- 
tle to Philemon, 159. 

Becker, on the Roman slaves, 162. 

Beyschlag, on the antithesis of Adam 
and Christ, 85. Status of the pre- 
incarnate Christ, 85. Distinction 
between θεὸς and ὁ θεὸς, 86. 

Bishops, 4. In the Pauline epistles, 
38, 40. In the Ignatian letters, 40. 
In the Pastoral Epistles, 47. 

Brace, C. L., on mitigations of slavery, 
168. 

Briggs, C. A., on the antithesis of 
Adam and Christ, 84. Doctrine of 
the preincarnate Christ in the Epis- 
tle to the Colossians, 85. 

Bruce, A. B., on the preincarnate 
Christ, 83. Treatment of justifica- 
tion in Epistle to the Romans, 124. 

Burrhus, the pretorian prefect, xxi, 


Cesarea, composition of the Asiatic 
epistles at, 160 f. 

Czesar’s household, 153. 

Callistratus, xiv. 

Calvin, on imputation, 127. 

Cheronea, battle of, x. 

Christians, confounded with Jews, 
193. 

Church in the house, 177, 193. 

Clementine Homilies, xxvi. 

Clement of Rome, reminiscences of the 
Philippian letter, xxvi. Fictitiously 
represented as St. Paul’s fellow-la- 
borer, xxvi. Spiritual obligations 
illustrated by civic duties, 32. Names 
of church officers, 40. On the epis- 
copal office, 44. On bishops aad 
deacons, 47. On qualifications of 
presbyters, 48. 

Collegia, 193. 

Colonies, Roman, xvi f. 

Colossians, Epistle to, composition at 
Czesarea, xxil. 

Comparatives, St. Paul’s use of, 29. 

Corinth, destroyed by Mummius, xi. 

Cynocephalz, battle of, xi. 


Datos, xiv. 

Deacons, in the Pauline epistles, 38, 
40. In the Pastoral Epistles, 49. 
In Clement of Rome and the Di- 
dache, 49. Older view of their ori- 
gin not sustained, 49. 

Deissmann, G, A., on ἐν Χριστῷ "Inco, 
4. On use of prepositions by Paul, 


179. 


195 


196 INDEX OF 

Designations of Christ in the Epistles 
of the Imprisonment, 100. 

Didache, bearing on primitive church 
organisation, 42 f., 44. 

Diognetus, letter to, reminiscence of 
Philippian letter, xxvi, 119. 

Dorner, on Christ’s equality with God, 
84. On antithesis of Adam and 
Christ, 84. On Rom. i. 4, 86. 

Dyrrhachium, treaty of, xi. 


Earthquakes in the Lycus valley, 161. 

Egnatia, Via, xviii. 

Epaphroditus, xxiii, 75. 

Ephesus, relations with cities of the 
Lycus, 157. 

*Emloxoros, in LXX, 45. 

*Erovpamos, application to the prein- 
carnate Christ, xxvii. 

Eusebius, recognition of the Philippian 
letter, xxvi. Of the Epistle to Phi- 
lemon, 159. On the date of the 
earthquake at Laodiczea, 161. 

Expositor, essays on primitive church 


polity, 37. 


Faith, ethical quality in, 127. 
Farrar, F. W., on the date of the Phil- 
ippian letter, xxiv. 


Godet, F., on the date of the Philippian 
letter, xxii. 

Gold mines in Macedonia, xv. 

Granicus, battle at the, x. 

Guilds in the Roman Empire and their 
relation to ecclesiastical nomencla- 


ture, 44, 45. 


Harnack, A., on the date of St. Paul’s 
arrival at Rome, xxi. On Phil. i. 3, 
6. On primitive church polity, 37, 
39. On date of Acts and Pastoral 
Epistles, 41, 42. On development 
of church polity in the Philippian 
letter, 42. On the Afostolical Ordi- 
nances, 43. 

Hatch, E., on primitive church polity, 


SUBJECTS 


37. On the origin of ecclesiastical 
titles, 44. On the relation of the 
synagogue to the original Christian 
polity, 46. 

Hebrews, Epistle to, 87. 

Heuzey and Daumet, A/ission Archéo- 
logique de Macédoine, xiv, xv, xviii. 

Hitzig, F., on Euodia and Syntyche, 
130. 

Hodge, C., on imputation, 125. 

Holland, H. S., on faith, 128. 

Holtzmann, H. J., on the date of the 
Philippian letter, xxii. Recognises 
the authenticity of, xxx. On a 
primitive collective Christendom, 
38. Date of the Pastoral Epistles, 
41. Relations of the primitive 
church to the synagogue, 46. Ac- 
cepts the Epistle to Philemon as 
authentic, 160. On use of preposi- 
tions by Paul, 179. 

Holtzmann, O., on Acts xvi. 12, xx. 
On date of Paul’s arrival at Rome, 
xxi. 

Hort, F. J. A., on the date of the 
Philippian letter, xxiv. On earth- 
quakes at Laodicza, 162. 


Ignatius, reminiscences of the Philip- 
pian letter in the epistles of, xxvi. 
On the episcopate, 40. 

Irenzeus, use of πρεσβύτερος, 48. 


Jerome, on the Epistle to Philemon, 
159. 

Josephus, on the detention of prison- 
ers, Xxi. 

Jowett, B., on the character of the 
Philippian letter, xxxiv. On the 
Parousia, 8. On lost Pauline epis- 
tles, 91. 

Judaisers, in Rome, 18. In Philippi, 
92, 93- 

Jiilicher, A., on the date of the Philip- 
pian letter, xxii. 

Jus Italicum, xvi, xx. 


INDEX OF 


Kl6pper, A., on the date of the Philip- 
pian letter, xxii. On Phil. i. 23, 29. 
Krenides, x. 


Lanciani, R., on the imperial house- 
hold, 153. 

Lecky, W. E. H., on slavery, 162. 

Liddon, H. P., on δικαιοσύνη, 123. 

Lightfoot, J. B., on the date of the 
Philippian letter, xxiii. Essay on 
“The Christian Ministry,” 37. Orig- 
inal Christian polity an imitation of 
the synagogue, 46. On πραιτώριον, 
51. On Phil. ii. 17, 71. On σχῆμα 
and μορφὴ, 79. On μόρφωσις, 80. 
On ἁρπαγμός, 88. On lost epistles 
to the Philippians, 91. On the posi- 
tion of woman in Macedonia, 130. 
On Cesar’s household, 154. 

Lipsius, R. A., on the date of the 
Philippian letter, xxii. 

Loening, E., on primitive church pol- 
ity, 37, 43. On ecclesiastical no- 
menclature as derived from the 
Roman guilds, 44. 

Luke, a Macedonian, xviii, xix. 
by Paul at Philippi, xx. 
Philemon, 192. 

Luther, on imputation, 127. 

Lyons and Vienne, Epistle to the 
Philippians cited in the letter to 
Asia, xxvi. 


Left 


Macedonia, geography of, ix. Litera- 
ture on, xii. Division by the Ro- 
mans, xi. 

Marquardt, on πραιτώριον, 51. 

Matheson, G., on Onesimus, 166. 

McGiffert, A., on date of Paul’s arrival 
at Rome, xxi. 

Menaea, 158. 

Ménégoz, on justification, 123. 

Messianic lordship of Christ, 86, 87. 

Meyer, H. A. W., on the date of the 
Philippian letter, xxii. On Judaisers 
in Rome, 19. On ἁρπαγμός, 58, 89. 


Salutes | 


SUBJECTS 197 


Mommsen, Th., on πραιτώριον, 52. 


Mummius, L., xi. 

Municipia, Roman, xvi. 

Muratorian Canon, includes Philip- 
pians and Philemon, xxvi, 159. 


Neapolis, xviii. 


Onesimus, in the martyrologies, 158. 

Origen, recognition of the Pauline 
authorship of the letters to the 
Philippians and Philemon, xxvi, 159. 


Parabolani, 77. 

Pastoral Epistles, date of, 41. 

Paul, arrives at Philippi, xix. In Ma- 
cedonia, xviii. Arrival at Rome, 
xxi, Delay of trial, xxi. 

Paullus, L. A‘milius, xi. 

Perdiccas, x. 

Perseus, xi. 

Peshitto, epistles to the Philippians 
and Philemon included in, xxvi, 159. 

Pfleiderer, O., on Judaisers in Rome, 
19. On Phil. i. 21, 27. On officers 
in the primitive church, 39. On 
Phil. ii. 12, 65. On moral resurrec- 
tion, 104. On the Epistle to Phile- 
mon, 160. 

Philemon, Epistle to, occasion of, 158. 
References in Ignatius, 159. Exter- 
nal evidence for, 159. Composed 
at Rome, 160. 

Philemon, a Colossian, 157. 

Philip of Macedon, x. Names Phil- 
ippi, xv. 

Philip, son of Demetrius, xi. 

Philippi, x, xiii, xiv. Defeat of Brutus 
and Cassius at, xvi. Description in 
Acts xvi. 12, xix f. Modern appear- 
ance of, xvii. 

Philippians, Epistle to, written at 
Rome, xxii. Occasion of, xxv. Crit- 
ical questions on, xxv f. Pauline 
diction of, xxx. Defenders of au- 
thenticity of, xxx. History of con- 
troversy on, xxx. Integrity of, xxxi ἕν 


198 


INDEX OF SUBJECTS 


Contents and character of, xxxii f. | Schiirer, E., on imitation of the syna- 


Text, xxxvii f. Commentaries on, 
xxxix f. 

Philo, on anarthrous θεὸς, 86. 

Polycarp, to the Philippians, xxv. On 
obligations to the spiritual polity, 
32. On former epistles to the Phil- 
ippians, 91. 

Przetorian guard, 16, 51. 

Preetors, xvii. 

Preincarnate existence of Christ, 83. 

Presbyters, 36. Identity with bishops, 
37. In the Pauline epistles, 40. In 
the Acts and Pastoral Epistles, 46, 
48. Πρεσβύτεροι καθεσταμένοι, 48, 
49. Ol καλῶς προεστῶτες πρεσβύ- 
TEpol, 49. 

Provinces, senatorial and imperial, xi. 

Pydna, Macedonian defeat at, xi. 


Ramsay, W. M., xviii, xix. On mpac- 
τώριον, 52. On date of Paul’s arri- 
val at Rome, xxi. 

Renan, E., xviii. On origin of eccle- 
siastical titles, 44. 

Réville, J., on the origin of the 
episcopate, 38, 39, 41, 45, 50. 

Righteousness of faith, imparted, not 
imputed, 125 f. 

Rothe, R., original Christian polity an 
imitation of the synagogue, 46. 

’ 

Sabatier, A., on righteousness of faith, 
126. On authenticity of Epistle to 
Philemon, 160. 

Salvation, Pauline doctrine of in Phil. 
lii, 19-21, 121 f. 

Sanday, W., on ᾿Ιησοῦς Χριστός and 
Χριστὸς ᾿Ιησοῦς, 3. On πίστις, 34. 
Review of Harnack, 37. On Czsar’s 
household, 153. 


gogue by the primitive church, 46. 
On Pauline chronology, xxi. 
Seneca, on slavery, 167. 
Slavery, Roman, 162 ff. 
attitude towards, 165 ff. 
Smyth, N., on the body of Christ’s 
glory, 121. 
Sohm, R., Kirchenrecht, 44. 
Stoicism, 32. 


St. Paul’s 


Tacitus, on date of earthquake at 
Laodicza, 161. On the increase 
of slaves, 162. 

Tertullian, allusion to the Epistle to 
Philemon, 159. 

Thasos, xiv, xv. 

Theophilus of Antioch, reminiscence 
of the Philippian letter in, xxvi. 

Tigellinus, succeeds Burrhus as preeto- 
rian prefect, xxiii. 

Timothy, 2, 74, 175. 

Tychicus, 158. 


Volkmar, G., on Euodia and Syntyche, 
XXVil. 


Wallon, H., on ancient slavery, 162. 

Weiss, B., on the date of the Philippian 
letter, xxii. On Judaisers in Rome, 
19. On Phil. i. 23, 29. On μορφὴ 
and δόξα, 81. 

Weizsicker, C., on primitive Christian 
polity, 37. On the date of Acts, 
41. On the preincarnate Christ, 83. 
On the Epistle to Philemon, 160, 
185. 

Westcott, B. F., on the glorified body | 
of believers, 121. 

Wieseler, K., on Philemon and Ar- 


chippus, 157. 


INDEX OF GREEK WORDS 


REFERENCES TO PHILEMON ARE DENOTED BY P. 


ἀγαθός, P. 14. 
ἀγάπη, P. 5, 9. 
ἅγιος, i. 1, iv. 21. 
αἰ γνός, iv. 8. 
ἀγών, i, 30. 


ἀδελφὸς, ii. 25; P. 1, 7. 


ἀδημονεῖν, ii. 26. 
αἴσθησις, i. 9. 
αἰσχύνεσθαι, i. 20. 
αἴτημα, iv. 6. 
αἰὼν, iv. 20. 
ἀκειρεῖσθαι, iv. 10. 
ἀκέραιος, ii. 15. 
ἀλλὰ εἰ καὶ, ii. 17. 
ἀλλὰ μενοῦνγε, iii. 8. 
ἄμωμος, li. 15. 
ἀναθάλλειν, iv. 10. 
ἀναλύειν, i. 23. 
ἀναπαύειν, Ῥ. 7. 
ἀναπληροῦν, ii. 30. 


ἀνάστασις, iii. 10, 11. 


ἀνῆκον, P. 8. 
ἄνω, iii. 14. 
amexdéxeo Oat, iii. 20. 


ἀπέχειν, iv. 18; P. 15. 


ἀπιδεῖν, ii. 23. 
ἀποβαίνειν eis, i. 19. 
ἀποκαλύπτειν, iii. 15. 
ἀποκαραδοκία, i, 20. 
ἀπολογία, i. 7. 
ἀπόστολος, li. 25. 
ἀπουσία, ii. 12. 
ἀπρόσκοπος, i. 10. 


ἀρετὴ, iv. 8. δοκεῖν, iii. 4. 
dprayyds, ii. 6; p. 88. | δοκιμάζειν, i. 10, 
ἀσφαλής, iii. 1. δοκιμή, ii, 22. 
ἄχρι τοῦ νῦν, i. 5. δόμα, iv. 17. 
αὐτάρκης, ἵν. 11. δόξα, i. 11; p. 81. 
ἄχρηστος, P. 11. ἐν δόξῃ, iv. 19. 
δόσις καὶ λῆμψις, iv. 15. 
βεβαίωσις, i. 7. δοῦλος, i. I. 
βίβλος ζωῆς, iv. 3. δύναμις, iii, 10, 21. 
βούλεσθαι, ii. 13; P. 13. 
βραβεῖον, ili. 14. ἑαυτῶν, ii, 12. 
‘Efpaios, iii. 5. 
γένος, iii. 5. ἐγγύς, iv. 5. 
γίνεσθαι, ii. 8, ili. 6. ἐγείρειν, i. 17. 
γίνεσθαι ἐν, ii. 7. ἔδραμον, ii. 16. 


γινώσκειν, i. 19, iii. 10. εἰλικρινὴς, 1. 10. 
γινώσκειν ὑμᾶς βούλομαι, | εἶναι, 11. 6. 


γνήσιος, iv. 3. [i. 12, εἴ πως, iii, 11. 
γνησίως, il. 20. εἰρήνη, i. 2, iv. 7, 9. 
γνώμη, P. 14. εἰς, i. 10, 12; P. 5. 
γνωρίζειν, i. 22, iv. 6. els κενὸν, il. 16. 
Ὑογγυσμός, li. 14. εἴ τις, iv. 8. 
ἐκκλησία, P. 2. 
δέησις, i. 4, iv. 6. ἐλλογᾷν, P. 18. 
δεκτός, iv. 18. ἐλπὶς, i. 20. 
διάκονος, i. 1. “ἐνάρχεσθαι, i. 6. 
διαλογισμός, ii. 14. ἔνδειξις, i. 28. 
διαστρέφειν, ii. 15. ἐνδυναμοῦν, iv. 13. 
διαφέρειν, i. 10. ἐνέργεια, iil. 21. 
δίκαιος, i. 7. ἐνεργεῖν, ii. 13. 


δικαιοσύνη, i. 11, iii. 6, 9.] ἐνεργὴς, P. 6. 
δικαιοσύνη θεοῦ, iii. 9. ἐν Κυρίῳ (Ἰησοῦν), i. 14, 
διὸ, 11, 9. ii. 19, 24, iv. I, 2, 10; 


ἀπώλεια, i. 28, iii. 19, 20. ! διώκειν, iii. 6, 12, 14. P. 16, 20. 


199 


200 


ἐντίμους ἔχειν, li. 29. 
ἐν Χριστῷ ᾿Ἰησοῦ, i. 1, 
iii. 9. 
ἐξανάστασις, ili. 11. 
ἐξομολογεῖσθαι, ii. 11. 
ἔπαινος, i. 11, iv. 8. 
᾿Ἐπαφρόδιτος, ii. 25, iv. 
18. 
ἐπεκτείνεσθαι, ili. 13. 
ἐπέχειν, 11. 16. 
ἐπὶ, i. 3, 5, li. 17, 27, 111. 9, 
iv. 17. 
ἐπίγειος, 11. 10. 
ἐπίγνωσις, i.9; Ῥ, 6. 
ἐπιεικής, ἵν. 5. 
ἐπιζητεῖν, iv. 17. 
ἐπιθυμία, i. 23. 
ἐπιλανθάνεσθαι, iii. 13. 
ἐπιποθεῖν, i. 8, 11. 26, iv. I. 
ἐπιπόθητοι, iv. 1. 
ἐπίσκοπος, 1.1. 
ἐπιτάσσειν, P. 8. 
ἐπιτελεῖν, i. 6. 
ἐπιχορηγία, 1. 19. 
ἐπουράνιος, li. 10; p. XXxVii. 
ἔργον Χριστοῦ, ii. 30. 
ἐριθία, i. 17. 
ἐρωτᾷν, iv. 3. 
ἑτέρως, iii. 15. 
εὐαγγέλιον, i. 12. 
εὐάρεστος, iv. 18. 
εὐδοκία, i. 15, ll. 13. 
Evodla, iv. 2. 
εὑρίσκειν, li. 7, ili. 9. 
εὔφημος, iv. 8. 
εὐχαριστία, iv. 6. 
εὔχρηστος, P. 11. 
εὐψυχεῖν, ii. 19. 


ζημιοῦσθαι, iii. 8. 


ἡγεῖσθαι, ii. 3, 6, 25, iii. 8. 
ἤδη wore, iv. 10. 

ἡμεῖς, iii. 17. 

nuépa’ Τησοῦ Χριστοῦ, i. 6. 
ἡμέρα Χριστοῦ, ii. 16. 


θέλειν, ii. 13; P. 14. 
θλίψιν ἐγείρειν, 1. 17. 
θυσία, ii. 17, iv. 18. 


᾿Ιησοῦς Χριστὸς, i. 1. 
iva, i. Q, ii. 2. 

ἵνα μὴ λέγω, P. 19. 
ἰσόψυχος, ii. 20. 
ἰσχύειν, iv. 13. 


καθώς, i. ἡ. 


καίπερ, iii. 4. 


καλῶς ποιεῖν, iv. 14. 


καρδία, iv. 7. 


καρπὸς, 1. II, iv. 17. 

κατά, 1.02; ii. 3, ἢ] 25, 
ἵν; ἘΣ 14. 

καταγγέλλειν, 1. 17. 

καταλαμβάνειν, iii, 12. 

καταντᾷν, iii. 11. 

κατατομή, iii, 2. 

καταχθόνιος, ii. 10. 

κατεργάζεσθαι, ii. 12. 

καύχημα, i. 26, ii. 16. 

κεῖμαι, i. 16. 

κενοδοξία, ii. 3. 

κενοῦν, 11. 7. 

κηρύσσειν, 1. 15. 

Κλήμης, iv. 3. 

κλῆσις, 111. 14. 

κοιλία, iii. 19. 

κοινωνεῖν, ἵν. 15. 

κοινωνία, i. 5, il. I, 11,10; 
P. 6. 

κοινωνός, P. 17. 

κόπος, κοπιᾷν, ii. 16. 

κόσμος, il. 15. 

κύνες, iii, 2. 

κύριος, ii. 11, 111, 20, iv. 5. 


λατρεύειν, 111. 3. 
λειτουργία, ii. 17, 30. 
λειτουργός, ii. 25. 
λογίζεσθαι, iii. 13, iv. 8. 
λόγος, iv. 15, 17. 

λόγος ζωῆς, ii. 16. 


INDEX OF GREEK WORDS 


μᾶλλον, i. 9. 
μεγαλύνειν, 1. 20. 
μέγαλως, iv. 10, 
μεριμνᾷν, iv. 6. 

μέσον, il. 15. 
μετασχηματίζειν, ili, 21. 
μέχρι, ii. 8, 30. 

μνεία, i. 3. 

μορφὴ, ii. 6, 7; p. 79. 
μόρφωσις, p. 80. 
μυεῖσθαι, iv. 12. 


νόημα, iv. 7. 
νόμος, iil. 5. 
vous, iv. 7. 
νυνὶ de, P. ΤΙ. 


ξενία, Ῥ, 22. 


οἶδα, i. 19, iv. 12. 
οἴεσθαι, i. 17. 
οἰκία, iv. 22. 
ὀκνηρός, iii. 1. 
ὀκταήμερος, ili. 5. 
ὁμοίωμα, ii. 7. 
ὀνίνασθαι, P. 20. 
ὄνομα, ii. 9, 10. 
ὀπίσω, iii. 13. 
ὀσμὴ, iv. 18. 
ὅστις, 111. 7, ἵν. 3. 
οὐχ ὅτι, 111. 12, iv. 11. 


πάλιν, ii. 28. 
παραβολεύεσθαι, ii. 30. 
παράκλησις, ii. 1. 
παραλαμβάνειν, iv. 9. 
παραμύθιον, ii. I. 
παραπλήσιον, ii. 27. 
παρουσία, i. 26. 
παρρησία, i. 20. 
πᾶς, i. 3, 9, 20, li. 21, 29, 
iii, 8, 21, iv. 5, 12, 21. 
πεποίθησις, lil. 4. 
περιπατεῖν, iii. 17, 18. 
περισσεύειν, iv. 12, 17, 18. 
περιτομὴ, iii. 3. 


INDEX OF GREEK WORDS 


πίστις, 1. 27, il. 17, ill. 9; 
ΤΕ: 

πλεονάζειν, ἵν. 17. 

πλὴν ὅτι, i. 18. 

πληροῦν, 1.11. 

πνεῦμα, i, 27, li. I, ill. 3. 

πνεῦμα ᾿Ιησοῦ Χριστοῦ, 
τ 10; 

πολιτεύεσθαι, 1. 27. 

πολίτευμα, 111. 20. 

πραιτώριον, i. 12; p. 51. 

πράσσειν, iv. 9. 

προκοπὴ; i. 12. 

pos, li. 30, iv.6; P. 5.123. 

προσευχὴ,]. 4, iv. 6; P. 4. 

προσοφείλειν, P. 19. 

προσφιλής, iv. 8. 

πρεσβύτης, P. 9. 

πτύρεσθαι, i. 28. 


σάρξ, ili. 3; P. 16. 
σεμνός, iv. 8. 
σκολιός, ii. 15. 
σκοπεῖν, il. 4, iil. 17. 
σκοπός, ili. 14. 
σκύβαλα, iii. 8. 
σπλάγχνα, i. 8, ii. 1; P. 
12. 
σπουδαιοτέρως, ii. 28. 
σταυρὸς, ii. 8, iii. 18. 
στεφανός, iv. 1. 
στήκειν, i, 27, iv. I. 


στοιχεῖν, 111. 16. 
συλλαμβάνειν, iv. 3. 
συμμορφίζεσθαι, iii. 10. 
σύμμορφος, ili. 21. 
συναθλεῖν, i. 27, iv. 3. 


συνεργός, ii. 25, iv. 3; P. 1. 


συνέχειν, i. 23. 
Σύνζυγος, iv. 3. 
συνκοινωνεῖν, iv. 14. 
συνκοινωνός, 1. 7. 
συνμιμητής, lil. 17. 


συστρατιώτης, Ἰϊ. 25; P.2. 


Συντύχη, iv. 2. 
συνχαίρειν, il. 17, 18. 
σχῆμα, li. 7; p- 80. 
σῶμα τῆς δόξης, 111. 21. 
σωτήρ, iii. 20. 
σωτηρία, i. 19. 


ταπεινοῦν, ii. 8, iv. 12. 

ταπεινοφροσύνη, il. 3. 

ταπείνωσις, ili. 21. 

τέκνον, li. 15; P. 10. 

τέλειος, iil. 15. 

τέλος, lil. 19. 

Ti yap, i. 18. 

τὸ αὐτὸ, ii. 18. 

τὸ εἶναι ἴσα, ii. 6; p. 84. 

τὸ λοιπόν, 111. 1, iv. 8; 
Ῥ. xxxii. 

τοιοῦτος, P. 9. 

τύπος, ili. 17. 


201 


υἱός, ii. 15. 

ὑπακούειν, ii. 12. 
ὑπάρχειν, ii. 6, iii. 20. 
ὑπέρ, 1.7, 1119s bs τὸν 21; 
ὑπερέχειν, ii. 3, ili. 8, iv. 7. 
ὑπερυψοῦν, ii. 9. 
ὑποτάσσειν, ili. 21. 
ὑστερεῖσθαι, iv. 12. 
ὑστέρησις, ἵν. 11. 


φαίνεσθαι, ii. 15. 

Φαρισαῖος, iii. 5. 

φθάνειν, iii. 16. 

φόβος καὶ τρόμος, ii. 12. 

φρονεῖν, i. 7, il. 2, 3, 55 
111. 15, 19, iv. 2, 10. 

φρουρεῖν, iv. 7. 

φωστήρ, ll. 15. 


χαίρειν, ili. I, iv. 4, 10. 

χαρίζεσθαι, i. 29, ii. 9; 
ἘΦ ΟΖ, 

χάρις, i. 2, 7. 

χορτάζεσθαι, iv. 12. 

Χριστὸς Ἰησοῦς, i. 1. 

χωρίζειν, P. 15. 

χωρὶς, P. 14. 


ψυχὴ, i. 27. 


ὡς, 1. 8,11. 7,12; P. 14, 16. 
wore, i. 13, ii. 12, iv. I. 


UATE 
ty fl ἣ } 


Π 


et li ee - - ΡΥ - 
A a a να 


ahs . Υ ἃ. oa Be 5 ren 
-, 2 ec > Mb eet aa +s Φτυδο Υ 
haere δ τος Ὅν. ν- νι eee ons τοι ρον - 
ΣΝ hin ΣΟ ae ee alah Net ea Gee nate ws . 
3 ᾿ 4 ΒΥ 
eal é A Ἵ 
a. ν ν 
y δ : 
- 
= * 4 , ΄ 
~= ~ , 
4 μα“ τῷ A “» - - 
Ss 
" 
ah 
4 
~ 
« 
. 
᾿ 
δ. 
“4 
Ε 3 
« 
¥ 
δ. 
« 
‘4 
’ 
’ ~ 
~ "- 


ΤῊ 


